Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Institutionalizing Innovation in Municipal Governance A Preliminary Analysis of the Plateau-Mont-Royalʼs… Landry, Julien Aug 31, 2010

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
310-SCARP_2010_gradproject_Landry.pdf [ 1.03MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 310-1.0102530.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0102530-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0102530-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0102530-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0102530-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0102530-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0102530-source.json
Full Text
310-1.0102530-fulltext.txt
Citation
310-1.0102530.ris

Full Text

Institutionalizing Innovation in Municipal Governance  A Preliminary Analysis of the Plateau-Mont-Royalʼs Comité aviseur Model    Report Submitted to: Projet Montréal Plateau-Mont-Royal Montréal, Québec  Author: Julien M. Landry School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia  August 31, 2010 Vancouver, British Columbia      
 ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT   The contributions of the following individuals are recognized:  Ms. Christine Gosselin, for her openness and trust in establishing this research partnership, for her support and availability during the process, for providing guidance and for being the link between the author and the people involved.  Mayor Luc Ferrandez, for accepting to establish this research partnership and for opening the Plateau-Mont-Royal administration’s doors.  Prof. Leonora C. Angeles, for her ongoing support and critical perspective, for her encouragement and guidance and for her trust and openness.  The School of Community and Regional Planning (Master’s Research Fund), for making the field research possible.  Mr. Florent Michelot, for welcoming and orienting this partnership.  Mr. Guillaume Cloutier, Councilor Richard Ryan and Mr. Daniel Sanger, for their transparency and for being the link with Comité aviseur members  Finally, to the Comité aviseur members, for their acceptance, for their participation and for their willingness to share their experience.  
 iii
 TABLE OF CONTENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................4 2. Background and Context ..............................................................................................6 2.1. Municipal Governance: Institutional and Political Context........................................... 6 2.1.1. Ville de Montréal........................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2. Plateau-Mont-Royal Borough and Administration ....................................................... 7 2.2. Participatory Budget Experience (2006-2008) ................................................................. 8 2.3. Projet Montréal .................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.1. Elections, November 2009 .......................................................................................... 10 2.3.2. Electoral Platform........................................................................................................ 10 2.4. Creation of Comités aviseurs ............................................................................................ 10 2.4.1. Objectives and Mandates............................................................................................. 11 2.4.2. Structure, Function and Process .................................................................................. 12 3. Methods ........................................................................................................................15 3.1. Collaborative Evaluation and Partnership..................................................................... 15 3.2. Timing and Scope.............................................................................................................. 15 3.3. Methods Used .................................................................................................................... 15 3.3.1. Focus Groups............................................................................................................... 15 3.3.2. Semi-Structured Interviews ......................................................................................... 16 3.3.3. Survey.......................................................................................................................... 16 3.3.4. Participant Observation ............................................................................................... 16 4. Findings ........................................................................................................................17 4.1. Preliminary Results and Outputs .................................................................................... 17 4.2. Comité aviseur Member Survey ....................................................................................... 17 4.2.1. Survey Respondents Profile ........................................................................................ 17 4.2.2. Survey Results ............................................................................................................. 17 4.3. Additional Findings .......................................................................................................... 22 5. Analysis: Good Governance and Comités aviseurs ...................................................31 5.1. Good Governance Framework and Indicators .............................................................. 31 5.2. Projet Montréal, Comité aviseur and Good Governance ................................................ 32 5.2.1. Efficiency .................................................................................................................... 32 5.2.1. Transparency ............................................................................................................... 32 5.2.1. Participation................................................................................................................. 33 5.3. Institutionalizing ‘Good’ Participatory Governance..................................................... 34 5.4. Monitoring Participatory Governance and Citizen Engagement ............................... 37 5.5. Lessons from Ottawa and Guelph ................................................................................... 39 6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................40 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................42 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................48 APPENDICES..................................................................................................................51 
 iv
 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES   Figure 1. Map of Montreal boroughs and reconstituted municipalities as of January 1, 2006 Figure 2. Decision-making and implementation hourglass Figure 3. Members’ assessment of the Comité aviseur’s role Figure 4. Members’ learning experience in Comité aviseur Figure 5. Best practices in Comité aviseur participation Figure 6. Groupings of Comités aviseur according to related mandates Figure 7. Cost and benefit indicators for citizen participation Figure 8. SWOT Analysis of Comités aviseurs   Table 1. Chart of Montreal’s political bodies and jurisdiction Table 2. Outstanding questions with respect to roles and responsibilities   
 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   Following its electoral victory in the Plateau-Mont-Royal in November 2009, the Projet Montréal political party has been experimenting with a new model of participatory governance based on the work of expert advisory committees, or Comité aviseurs. These committees are made up of volunteer residents, experts and professionals, and are mandated to develop project and policy proposals based on main issues and actions contained in the party’s electoral platform. 
 Even though the experience is relatively short (approximately 8 months), implementing this model of municipal governance and decision-making has already brought both benefits and challenges. Indications of improved efficiency and collaboration with the public service have been met with some challenges in process and structure. This raises the questions of how to institutionalize participatory governance in the present context, how to do so sustainably, and how to monitor the process to ensure that it will lead to desired outcomes. This report seeks to answer these questions and provides a set of recommendations from which Projet Montréal may draw as they move forward with the implementation of Comités aviseurs.   The report is based on a collaborative evaluation research methodology, which was developed and revisited in partnership with Projet Montréal officials. The research relies on data gathered in May and June of 2010 through focus groups, interviews, participant observation and a survey of committee members.   A majority of members (59.3%) responded to the survey and provided the following responses:  a) On the Comités’ Roles and Functioning: the levels of satisfaction and clarity about members’ roles and about the Comités’ functioning differ from one Comité to the next. Although there is no consensus, the most important role of Comités aviseurs is that of developing proposals. There is a high level (73.9%) of satisfaction with the process so far.  b) On the Nature of Participation: motivated by an opportunity to effect change in their borough, most respondents feel they actively participate in, or have an influence on decision-making. Members are learning a significant amount of information, knowledge and skills about municipal governance. It remains unclear what the role of the general public is or ought to be in this process.  c) On Strengths, Weaknesses, Best Practices and Main Challenges: strengths included efficiency, innovation, creativity, and collaboration between a diversity of residents and experts; weaknesses related to the balance between expert and non-expert citizens, unclear roles and information flow and lack of follow-up; best practices included 
 2 involving public servants, sharing knowledge, fostering diversity and meeting regularly; and the challenges related to the bureaucratic environment, to monitoring the process, to ensuring clear communication and leadership.  d) On Recommendations: Key recommendations included reaching out to a broader audience, establishing clearer criteria in member recruitment, as well as improving communication and follow-up.  Complementary to the survey results, other findings were synthesized and presented as needs to be addressed in fostering the long-term viability of Comités aviseurs:  a) Need for more clarity and follow-up in the process; b) Need for more formal meeting structure and process; c) Need for documenting and managing information; d) Need for more clearly-defined roles and responsibilities; e) Need for increased communication and coordination between Comités aviseurs; f) Need to incorporate public opinion (this may include framing the Comités aviseurs as public representation, increasing public access to the process, combining the Comités with public broader public consultation or inviting the public to participate directly in the process); g) Need for budget and resources; and h) Need to acknowledge and foster members’ motivation.  These needs are currently being met and addressed to varying degrees. They represent Projet Montréal’s main considerations as they explore the sustainability of Comités aviseurs.   These findings point to some of the common advantages and challenges of participatory governance. In support of institutionalizing this model of governance, the findings are analyzed within a good governance framework that uses efficiency, transparency and participation as its key indicators.  The Comité aviseur model is found thus far to be quite efficient. Although the timeline is still rather short to properly assess efficiency, the impressive number and high quality of projects submitted to the public service are good indicators.  With respect to transparency, the model performs very well with the citizens directly involved – that is, Comité members. There is some room for improvement with respect to transparency and accountability to the general public.  The case is similar with regards to participation. Members are highly engaged in a participatory governance model while the public at large does not have much opportunity to contribute.  
 3 There are many factors to consider in institutionalizing the Comité aviseur model. According to indicators developed by Irwin and Stanbury (2004), the Plateau-Mont- Royal is a fairly favorable context for participatory models of governance. This is also visible in analyzing the Comité aviseur’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT): the strengths and opportunities are obvious and many of the weaknesses and threats can be addressed with more participation and better monitoring.  Motsi’s evaluation framework for citizen engagement is presented as a basic starting point for monitoring the Comités aviseurs. It focuses on five components of a participatory exercise:  a) Purpose b) Process c) People d) Context e) Outcomes   The report concludes by acknowledging Projet Montréal’s willingness to be critical about its work. On the one hand, initial success, efficient work and the submission of high-quality proposals are encouraging. On the other hand, there remain the challenges of communication and coordination, clarity of roles and responsibilities, information management and the public’s role. According to a good governance framework, the model is faring very well for people who are directly involved. The recommendations provided below seek in part to extend access and benefits to the general population. Projet Montréal is doing commendable work in attempting to govern innovatively. In doing so, it will be important to be responsive to the evolving context and reality of the Comités aviseurs so that the model may be institutionalized, monitored and sustained for the duration of the electoral term.   The following recommendations (with rationale and potential actions) are proposed to Projet Montréal as it embarks on its second year of working with Comités aviseurs:  1. Ensure clarity of process and regular follow-up with Comité aviseur members. 2. Formalize Comité aviseur meetings. 3. Clarify roles and responsibilities. 4. Centralize and manage information for transparency and accountability. 5. Ensure coordination and communication between Comités aviseurs. 6. Allocate appropriate resources to improve the governance model. 7. Integrate the Comités aviseurs within a broader public participation framework. 8. Establish norms for future Comités aviseur formation. 9. Monitor and evaluate Comités aviseurs. 
 4 1. Introduction   Following the election of their candidates in November 2009, the citywide political party Projet Montréal has been experimenting with a new model of governance in the Plateau- Mont-Royal borough of Montreal. The participatory governance model is based on the work of numerous advisory committees, called Comités aviseurs. Composed of volunteer residents, experts and professionals, each Comité aviseur is mandated to develop project and policy proposals with respect to the main issues and actions contained in the party’s electoral platform.  The borough has had previous experiences with participatory forms of governance, particularly with resident committees and participatory budgeting. Again, with the Comités aviseurs, the Plateau-Mont-Royal provides a window into experimenting with innovative and participatory municipal governance.  Exploring a novel model of municipal governance and decision-making inevitably brings challenges. As Projet Montréal moves forward with the Comités aviseurs, initial problems are emerging. The administration (as well as Comité members) is hoping that this model endures until the end of this electoral term, and beyond. Proper institutionalization and monitoring of this governance model will thus become essential to its long-term viability. With this in mind, this report will attempt to address the following questions:  • How can Projet Montréal sustainably institutionalize the Comités aviseurs governance model in the Plateau-Mont-Royal?  • How can good governance be monitored within the Plateau-Mont-Royal’s borough government?  These questions and the challenges to which they allude are neither novel nor exclusive to the Plateau-Mont-Royal. They are informed by the ongoing discussions and debates around citizen engagement, civic capacity building, participatory planning and collaborative governance in urban areas around the world. For instance, a study of consultative councils in seven countries found similar challenges as is experiencing the Plateau-Mont-Royal administration in terms of communication and follow-up (Bond et al., 2007, p. 48). Other studies have also identified the following challenges for local governments in supporting citizen engagement and participatory governance: changing mindsets, sustainability, inclusion, representation and representativeness, equity in partnerships, managing and navigating complexity as well as context and diversity (Gaventa, McGee and Zipfel, 2007. p. 5-8). Again, many of these issues and challenges are similar to the ones surfacing with the Comités aviseurs.  The following section of this report situates the Comités aviseurs within Montreal’s municipal context and provides background on the Plateau-Mont-Royal’s recent 
 5 experience with citizen participation. It also describes the emergence and key characteristics of the Comités aviseur model.  Section 3 presents the methods and methodology employed to gather and analyze the data.  Section 4 outlines the findings from the data collected. It provides an overview of survey responses from Comité aviseur members as well as a synthesis of additional information collected through interviews, focus groups and participant observation.  Section 5 presents the research findings within an analytical framework based on good governance. It provides a rationale for the institutionalization of participatory governance and proposes a basic monitoring framework.  Finally, following the conclusion, a set of recommendations is presented as possible alternatives and means for the institutionalization of the Comité aviseur governance model.   This report does not intend to examine what could have been done differently in setting up existing Comités aviseurs. It takes the current situation as a starting point and explores what can be done at this stage, given the experience to date.  It is also a preliminary analysis. The Comités aviseurs are at a very early stage.  As an emergent innovative model of participatory governance, though, it is still useful to conduct an early assessment of its process and structure. Despite the limitations imposed by a relatively short experience, there is an opportunity to make early adjustments that may increase the model’s viability and improve its effectiveness.  This report is written as part of the requirements for the Masters of Arts (Planning) at the School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. It is intended for use by Projet Montréal staff and elected officials in the Plateau-Mont-Royal as they prepare to enter their second year of working with Comités aviseurs.    
 6 sdaaddsf
 2. Background and Context   2.1. Municipal Governance: Institutional and Political Context1  On January 1, 2006, the City of Montreal instituted a municipal structure that is comprised of 19 boroughs and 15 reconstituted municipalities (Figure 1).   Figure 1. Map of Montreal boroughs and reconstituted municipalities as of January 1, 2006    Source: Montrealais, 2010   The City of Montreal (Ville-centre) collects tax revenue and delivers services to all municipalities that make up the agglomerated territory. Table 1 shows the different 























































 1 Unless stated otherwise, the information in this section is from the Ville de Montréal website. ‐ 19
Boroughs
–
depicted
in
darker
 colors,
inside
thick
border
 
‐ 15
Reconstituted
Municipalities
–
 depicted
in
lighter
colors,
outside
of
 thick
border

 
 7 political bodies that comprise Montreal’s municipal governance structure. The City has its own elected council, which has jurisdiction over the 19 boroughs. In each borough, a Borough Council has jurisdiction over an array of policy areas and services. Finally, the Agglomeration Council, a relatively new body made up of elected officials from Montreal and the 15 Reconstituted Municipalities, oversees services that are delivered throughout the agglomeration.   Table 1. Chart of Montreal’s political bodies and jurisdiction  Montréal 15 Reconstituted Municipalities City Council 19 Borough Councils Agglomeration Council 15 City Councils Montreal’s local jurisdiction City Council’s local jurisdiction Borough’s local jurisdiction Agglomerate jurisdiction Local jurisdiction All of Montreal’s boroughs Each borough 16 Affected municipalities Each municipality  Source: Ville de Montréal, 2010   2.1.1. Ville de Montreal  Montreal’s City Council, the primary decision-making body, has jurisdiction over:  • Public safety • Governmental agreements • Building renovation subsidies • Environment • The Master Plan • The three-year capital works program, etc.  The City Council also oversees, standardizes and approves decisions made by Borough Councils. City Councilors also sit on the Borough Council where they were elected.  2.1.2. Plateau-Mont-Royal Borough and Administration  Borough Councils have jurisdiction and decision-making power over the following matters:  • Urban planning • Waste collection • Culture • Recreation • Social and community development • Parks • Roads • Housing • Human resources • Fire prevention • Non-taxation fees • Financial management 
 8 The Plateau-Mont-Royal’s Council is composed of officials elected at large: the Mayor and six Councilors, three of which also sit on City Council.  This relatively new decentralized governance structure gives boroughs a significant amount of power and “brings certain aspects of local governance closer to the citizens” (Alfaro, 2010). While it may add to the level of complexity and bureaucracy, this system increases citizens’ access to decision-makers and enables more specific policy-making and experimentation at the neighborhood level.   2.2. Participatory Budget Experience (2006-2008)  Within this context of decentralization, boroughs gained control over their own budget, enabling the Plateau-Mont-Royal to implement its first participatory budget (PB) from 2006 to 2008 (Rabouin, 2009, p. 88-89). Unprecedented in Montreal and one of few such experiences in Canada (Lerner & Van Wagner, 2006, p. 1), the process was heavily inspired by the experience of Porto Alegre, Brazil, while adapted to the local context (Rabouin, 2005, p. 1). Union Montréal, the party then holding the majority at City Council, also made up most of the Plateau-Mont-Royal’s administration, with five of six councilors and the mayor. In 2006, in concert with local community organizations, this administration’s experimentation with PB saw broad public outreach and consultation. In 2007, the experience was further consolidated with improvements in the process, a more pragmatic and territorialized approach based on districts, a larger portion of the capital expenditure budget2 under consideration and a relatively good participation rate. The only change brought about in 2008 was a series of training sessions offered by the Centre d’écologie urbaine de Montréal. Little improvement, a lower participation rate than expected, and a lack of funds resulted in weakening the process’s credibility and ultimately led to a relatively abrupt end (Latendresse, 2010, p. 17).  According to Latendresse, the strengths of the PB experience include the fact that it further positioned the borough as a public and political space, it increased transparency in decision-making and planning, it increased public participation and participants’ learning and awareness of the borough’s functioning and reinforced local democracy by redefining the relationships between the institution, elected officials, public servants and citizens (p. 24).  The following weaknesses were also identified: insufficiently clear objectives, limited public participation, an overseeing committee (Comité d’accompagnement) that was not institutionalized, a process affected by partisanship, and a lack of clarity as to how the process impacted the decisions (p. 25-26). Another problem was the absence of public servants in the process (Rabouin, 2009, p. 89). It also garnered criticism from the opposition (now in office) with respect to co-opting the PB process, to excessively constraining and narrowing its scope and to poor fiscal management (Bergeron, 2008, p. 4-10). This left little hope for the PB beyond the 2009 elections.  























































 2 Programme triennal d’immobilisation. 
 9 Despite these challenges, there is still evidence that the Plateau-Mont-Royal constitutes a jurisdiction where public participation is possible and favorable, given its historical experience with PB. There remains a belief among some actors that with the necessary adjustments, participatory budgeting can keep evolving in the right direction and become “a process of participatory democracy […] that is adapted to the Montreal context”3 (Rabouin, 2009, p. 97).   2.3. Projet Montréal4  Projet Montréal was founded and emerged as a political party at the Congrès de formation de Projet Montréal in November 2004 (Dubuc, 2009). It is in part founded on the premise that the city ought to be a place for citizens first, as opposed to the supremacy of the automobile. The party’s mission is to modernize and democratize the municipal political arena; to counter the exodus of Montreal’s population; to foster genuine economic, ecological and social development; to create an innovative public transportation network; in short, to transform Montreal into an exemplary 21st century city5 (Projet Montréal, 2007, p. vii).  In 2005, Richard Bergeron, one of two founding members (with Claude Mainville), was elected as City Councilor. The party has since enjoyed increasing popularity and membership, and it currently has 14 elected officials, including two borough mayors, six city councilors and six borough councilors in a total of six boroughs.  From its inception, the notion of participatory democracy was central to Projet Montréal’s vision and approach to municipal politics. “We need to move ever closer to a participatory democracy. We need, in every neighborhood in Montreal, citizen committees […] that control [elected officials]. It is the only way”6 (Cliche, in Dubuc, 2009).  This vision for public participation has endured. The party’s Declaration of Principles sets forth:  the development of a new participatory form of transparently managed municipal democracy, nourished by the social fabric of the community, thus empowering citizens to take initiatives and instituting an appeals process whereby referenda can be held on contentious issues, even between elections; ethical conduct by the party and elected officials, rejecting conflicts of interest and insider dealings while promoting fairness (Projet Montréal, 2010a) 























































 3 “un processus de démocratie participative sur le budget adapté au context montréalais.” 4 Unless stated otherwise, the information in this section is from the Projet Montréal website: http://www.projetmontreal.org/ 5 “de moderniser et démocratiser la vie politique municipale, de freiner l’exode de la population montréalaise, d’instaurer un véritable développement économique, écologique et social, de créer un réseau de transport collectif d’avant-garde, bref de faire de Montréal une ville exemplaire du XXIe siècle.” 6 “Il faut aller de plus en plus vers la démocratie participative. Il faut qu’il y aie dans tous les quartiers à Montréal des comités citoyens qui contrôlent [les élus]. C’est la seule façon.” 
 10 2.3.1. Elections, November 2009  On November 1, 2009, Projet Montréal swept the municipal elections in the Plateau- Mont-Royal, winning every council seat as well as the mayor’s office. With a voter turnout of 43.45 per cent, Projet Montréal’s mayoral candidate Luc Ferrandez was voted in with 44.76% of the vote. All candidates to Council won their respective district with support ranging from 38.13% to 49.51% (Saindon, 2009, p. 55-61).  Having won all Plateau-Mont-Royal elected seats, Projet Montréal has no opposition in council and has begun to promptly implement its platform.  2.3.2. Electoral Platform  The electoral platform that propelled Projet Montréal into office in the Plateau-Mont- Royal contains over 150 projects and proposals (see Appendix 1). These are divided into six key areas of intervention: Greening (promoting the urban environment); Traffic- calming and reduction; Reducing noise for further appeasement; Promoting neighborhood life; Managing differently; and Developing differently7 (Projet Montréal, 2009).   2.4. Creation of Comités aviseurs  The rationale for creating Comités aviseurs emerged during the 2009 electoral campaign, when mayoral candidate Luc Ferrandez met many people with exceptional skills and competencies who were willing to work on issues on a volunteer basis. Once in office, the mayor was faced with the challenge of submitting project proposals to the public service for approval and implementation. To expedite implementation, there was a need to submit projects and proposals that were as complete as possible.  The newly elected party was also faced with budgetary constraints in tackling its ambitious platform. Mr. Ferrandez realized that there seemed to be enough skilled people available to assist in developing well-defined projects and policies to be submitted to the borough’s public service. This readily available pool of resources (skilled and expert volunteers) together with the need to refine project proposals (front-end research, benchmarking, project development, etc.) led to the formation of the first Comités aviseurs in January 2010. The Comité mandates were developed not only to draw innovation from the Plateau-Mont-Royal’s highly creative and educated population, but also to find solutions to the budgetary situation. Thus, while some of Comités’ work creates expenses (e.g., infrastructure), others come at no cost (e.g., by-laws and regulations), and others still are revenue-generating (e.g., parking permitting system).    























































 7 Verdir; Apaiser et réduire circulation; Apaiser en réduisant le bruit; Valoriser la vie de quartier; Gérer différemment; Développer différemment. 
 11 2.4.1. Objectives & Mandates  The overarching objective for each Comité aviseur is “to submit the most complete preliminary policies and projects to the public service such that it is left with a minimum of work to add to the proposal”8 (L. Ferrandez, personal communication, May 20, 2010).  Comités aviseurs were formed around Projet Montréal’s key issue areas and actions, as outlined in their platform. To date, eight committees have been formed and given clear mandates, as follows:  • Comité aménagement (Urban Planning/Design): To recommend concrete measures and proposals for urban design and re-design. • Comité bruit (Noise): To identify problematic areas with respect to excess noise and nuisance and to propose regulations and enforcement measures. • Comité Champs des possible9: To recommend a project for a naturalized park with expressed details on design, decontamination, uses, maintenance, security, access, costs and implementation. • Comité circulation (Traffic-calming): To recommend a plan and concrete solution for issues related to traffic reduction and calming as well as urban design. • Comité logement social et abordable (Social and Affordable Housing): To explore legal and regulatory measures and options in fostering social and affordable housing, to identify innovative ways of creating spaces for social housing (design, location, uses), and to explore and identify funding sources and opportunities. • Comité cohabitation résidents-commerçants – ruelles commerciales (Merchant- Resident Cohabitation - Commercial Alleyways): To recommend regulatory solutions and enforcement measures for problems related to access and uses of alleyways, delivery schedules, delivery truck routes and truck size (Comité cohabitation, 2010, p. 1-4). • Comité stationnement (Parking): To recommend solutions to problems related to parking availability, parking fee structure, and to identify income-generating options. • Comité verdissement (Greening and Green Spaces): To recommend a triennial greening plan, including alleyways, pedestrian infrastructures, streets, walls, green networks, funding sources, urban agriculture, urban heat islands, ecological network, urban forest, water, community gardens, citizen participation and street reconfiguration and re-design (Comité verdissement, 2010, p. 6-8).   Depending on the nature of their mandate, Comités aviseurs may develop policy recommendations, propose changes to bylaws or regulations, explore innovative solutions 























































 8 “De soumettre des politiques préliminaires ou des projets préliminaires à la fonction publique pour que, elle, aie un minimum de travail.” 9 The Champs des possibles, or “Field of the possible” is a vacant green space in one of the Plateau-Mont- Royal’s industrial sectors. Citizen groups and the borough have been exploring how to preserve, manage or develop this site. 
 12 to problems or conceive specific projects. In all cases, they do the preparatory work for submissions to the public service.  An efficient system for project submission and approval is necessary if Projet Montréal is to implement a significant number of the projects proposed on their platform. Comités aviseurs are not meant to be representative of the population (Comité circulation, 2010, p.2). There is a notion that through previous consultations (Plan de déplacement urbain, 2009; Participatory Budget, 2006-2008; Soirées du Plateau, 2003; Sommet de Montréal, 2002), citizens have clearly expressed their desires. What is needed is a “project- implementing machine, not a consultation machine”10 (L. Ferrandez, personal communication, May 20, 2010).  The expected outcome is that Comités aviseurs become capable of delivering structured, interesting, coherent and integrated projects. The main criterion, then, is to have project proposals that are most ready for implementation, not ones that necessarily appeal to everyone.  2.4.2. Structure, Function & Process  Comités aviseurs are typically made up of five to eight members, at least 50% of which ought to be professionals or experts in the topic or issue at hand. A political attaché is assigned to each committee. Each committee has a President who is appointed by the Mayor. Public servants may join committees and participate to meetings to a varying extent, depending on the issue at hand and on the stage of proposal development. The Mayor regularly attends Comité aviseur meetings and often plays a very active role.  Meetings occur semi-regularly (approximately once every two weeks), depending on members’ availability and on the nature and status of the work. The time required for project and proposal development varies significantly from one committee to another, again depending on the nature of the problem and solutions being sought.  Much of the work is done between meetings and consists of research, benchmarking, identifying best practices, data analysis, report writing, and so forth.  Member selection has been mostly done by appointment, either by Comité aviseur Presidents or by Projet Montréal staff and elected officials. Some Comités aviseurs are made up of citizens who have worked together for many years on an issue, while others are made up of newly acquainted people. The characteristics sought in members include expertise, efficiency, creativity, resourcefulness and a commitment to the issue or cause.  There is no uniform meeting format, leadership and facilitation style, record keeping or communication strategy. Ad hoc Comités may be formed if new issues emerge and any citizen can join a committee if willing to contribute the necessary time and energy.  























































 10 “C’est une machine à faire des projets qu’on a de besoin, c’est pas une machine à consulter.” 
 13 The link between the committees’ work and the general public currently lies in the members’ networks and connections to their community. There is no additional outreach to the public. The committees also serve as a forum where public servants can work closely and share resources with citizens and local experts.  The Comité aviseurs’ work largely impacts how the borough budget is allocated. In fact, the committees are integrated in the Plateau-Mont-Royal’s decision-making structure, as illustrated in Figure 2.  Figure 2. Decision-making and implementation hourglass      Typically, information flows between the Mayor and the Director of Public Service. The latter would forward decisions down the ranks to the different levels of public servants. With this model, the committees have provided an arena for direct communication between Comités aviseurs members (citizens) and public servants in positions as low as Team Leaders (Chefs d’équipes). As Figure 2 also shows, the Comités aviseurs serve as a bridge between citizens and the Projet Montréal team. As a result, this model of governance is bringing decision-making on project implementation closer to citizens.  Finally, the Comités aviseurs are leveraging power, influence and professional networks to access expert information and knowledge. For instance, leading professionals, Implementation
and
Delivery
(Public
service)
 Decision‐making
(Projet
Montréal)
 Typical
Information
Flow
 Direct

Communication


Through
 

Comités
 


aviseurs
 
 14 academics, City of Montreal staff and Plateau-Mont-Royal planning staff, regularly attend meetings. By tapping into this expertise, the committees are able to develop and articulate project proposals more effectively and efficiently.  It is within this context that Projet Montréal is enjoying initial success and encountering the first challenges. The Plateau-Mont-Royal administration will need to address some of these initial challenges if it wishes to institutionalize the Comités aviseurs so that they are viable in the medium- and long-term. The next section outlines the methods used to gather data and attempt to address this issue.   
 15 3. Methods   This section outlines the research methodology and data gathering methods employed by the researcher. Results and findings from the research are presented in Section 4 and analyzed in Section 5 of the report. They form the basis of the recommendations proposed at the end of the report.   3.1. Collaborative Evaluation and Partnership  A methodology based on collaborative evaluation (O’Sullivan, 2004; Davidson, 2005; Brousselle et al., 2009) was employed in order to gather the data. In early February 2010, the author contacted Projet Montréal and initiated discussion with staff members regarding the research mandate and goals. An ‘Advisory Committee’ made up of three Projet Montréal staff who work closely with the Comités aviseurs was formed in the initial phase of data collection. In collaboration with this committee, some evaluation questions were identified and decisions were made on data gathering methods and sources. There was a regular flow of information between the researcher and members of this committee throughout the process.   3.2. Timing and Scope  It is important to note the timing of this research within the Comités aviseurs’ implementation. Most of the data gathering was conducted only six month after the Comités aviseurs’ inception (in May and June 2010). Given that this model is projected for the entire duration of the current administration’s term, it is early in the process to evaluate outcomes and results. Therefore, the scope of this analysis has focused primarily on the evaluation of the process, not the outcomes, results or impacts. While the relatively short experience may be limiting in terms of gauging this model’s success, it is an opportune moment to provide the governing administration with guidelines and recommendations for institutionalizing and monitoring the process of collaborating with the committees.   3.3. Methods Used  A variety of methods were used to gather information, depending on the type of data and the sample size. Using mixed methods has enabled the triangulation of data in the analysis.  3.3.1. Focus Groups  Two focus groups were held with the Advisory Committee. These sessions were a key source of guidance and feedback on the direction and objectives of the research. 
 16 Consequently, the information gathered here influenced the approach taken as well as the data that was sought and obtained through other methods. A third focus group was held with Comité aviseur members as a follow-up to the survey.  3.3.2. Semi-Structured Interviews  Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with Projet Montréal staff, elected officials, the Plateau-Mont-Royal’s Mayor, the Plateau-Mont-Royal’s Borough Director, Projet Montréal’s governance and democracy expert and an expert on participatory budgeting (see Appendix 2).  3.3.3. Survey  A 25-question electronic survey (see Appendix 3) was sent to all Comité aviseur members and inquired about a) member selection and involvement, b) roles and functioning, c) decision-making, and d) participation. Fifty-nine (59) percent of the membership responded and 36% of respondents agreed to participate in a follow-up focus group.  3.3.4. Participant Observation  Finally, the researcher attended nine (9) Comité aviseur meetings and two (2) Borough Council meetings as an observer. Particular attention was paid to meeting agendas and content, group dynamics, leadership, the nature of communication, knowledge exchange and member participation. 
 17 4. Findings   4.1. Preliminary Results & Outputs  At the time of publication, the first projects on which the Comités aviseurs focused were being implemented. New regulations and by-laws on noise have been enacted and the first phase in greening some of the borough’s parks and streets has been implemented. The Comité bruit (Noise) is finalizing its report on noise and nuisances. Many more projects will be implemented in upcoming months, as they are under review by the public service. It is useful to keep this in mind while considering the data presented below. Many of the opinions and perspectives provided were given at a rather early stage in the Comité aviseur’s life cycle. The following should be taken as a preliminary monitoring of ongoing work, not as the basis for a thorough evaluation.   4.2.  Comité aviseur Member Survey  4.2.1. Survey Respondents Profile  A 25-question electronic survey was sent to all (54) Comité aviseur members, with a response rate of 59.3%. The 25 individuals who responded represent 32 members, since many individuals sit on more than one committee. Almost half (45.8%) of the respondents identified themselves primarily as residents while 29.2% identified as experts or professionals. The remainder of respondents sat on Comités aviseurs as representatives of community organizations (12.5%), public servants or borough employee (8.3%) and elected officials (4.2%). The vast majority of respondents (81%) were personally invited to become a member, while the others (19%) responded to a public invitation made at a council meeting.  The majority of survey respondents were male (73.9%) and the mean age of participants was 43 years. Most respondents (62.5%) hold a graduate or post-graduate degree, and 91.6% have at least obtained an undergraduate degree. The mean gross annual income of respondents is 49,999$.  The respondents’ profile suggest that, in general, Comité aviseur members are highly skilled and motivated individuals with a capacity to understand and provide some expertise in seeking solutions to complex issues. That a majority of members was chosen by party officials suggests that many members are likely sympathetic to Projet Montréal’s political platform, but need not necessarily be partisan.  4.2.2. Survey Results  The survey sought to gather respondents’ impressions and information on the following themes: a) the Comités’ roles and functioning; b) the nature of participation c) the 
 18 strengths, weaknesses, best practices and main challenges; and d) recommendations. The main findings are outlined below.  a) Comité aviseurs Roles and Functioning  The majority (80%) of respondents agreed (partially or completely) that the Comité aviseur’s mandate was made clear from the beginning and was slightly clearer at the time of response. Members from the Comité Verdissement (Greening) were the least clear about their mandate, although this is improving over time. Similarly, 76.7% of respondents agreed that the objectives are clear. The Comité Stationnement (Parking) diverged significantly from this, with only 33.3% of its members (2 of 6 respondents) in agreement. Fewer members (64%) agreed that the results they can expect from this work are clear.  Some respondents recognized an evolution in the mandates and objectives and identified the challenges of working within a complex bureaucratic environment as a contributing factor to this evolution.  There are various interpretations amongst respondents as to the role of the Comités aviseurs. Figure 3 outlines the responses:   Figure 3. Members’ assessment of the Comité aviseur’s role     It is noteworthy that according to some of the expressed mandates, the Comité aviseur’s role is “to initiate policies and projects [and] to develop and implement concrete 
 19 projects”11 (Comité bruit, 2010, p. 2). The survey responses are consistent with the mandated role of project development (95,8%), but fewer members (41.7%) agree that there is an implementation role. This attests to the diversity of mandates and objectives, which requires different Comités to assume different roles. One respondent added the role of being a contact for citizens at large. In general, the roles with which most respondents agree correspond to the least decision-making responsibilities, and vice-versa.  With respect to the Comités’ functioning, most respondents agreed that the work was creative (83.3%), that there is good communication during meetings (79.2%) and that the meetings are well facilitated (62.5%). Over half agreed that the work is efficient (54.2%) and that there is good communication between meetings (50%). On all these points, the Comité Verdissement ranked lower than the norm, while only two of seven members from the Comité Circulation agreed that meeting facilitation is well adapted to the committee’s needs.  As Figure 3 shows, there is less clarity as to whether decision-making is a part of the Comités’ role. With regards to decisions committees have taken in their work to date, the majority agrees that decisions are made by consensus (65.2%) and that the decision- making process is transparent (66.7%). Only 54.2% of respondents agree that the Comités aviseurs have access to the necessary information for decision-making. The majority (73.9%) agrees that they are satisfied with the Comités’ functioning in general, 21.7% partially disagree and 4.3% do not know. There is most disagreement on this point from the Comité Verdissement (3 of 5 respondents partially disagreed).  b) The Nature of Participation  Respondents identified several motivating factors for joining a Comité aviseur. The most common responses related to: contributing to improvements and solving problems in the borough; contributing one’s expertise, knowledge and skills; concrete participation in municipal decision-making; personal interest in the topic or issue. A few responses related to building partnerships with organizations they represent, to an opportunity to learn (through research) and engage in group work, to support Projet Montréal and to a desire for rapid change.  Most responses seemed to stem from a broad perspective, rather than from a specific or self-interested position.  Most respondents did not identify any change in their motivation to be a member of a Comité aviseur since the beginning. What motivates members at this stage closely resembles what motivated them to join at the beginning.  Respondents consider that they participate actively in decision-making (40.9%) or that they have an influence on the decisions made (40.9%). Another 4.5% of respondents feel they are consulted before a decision is taken while 13.6% feel they are merely informed 























































 11 “Mettre en œuvre des projets et des politiques [et] la conception et l’implantation de projets concrets” 
 20 of the decisions that are made. The latter two response categories came exclusively from the Comité Verdissement (Greening) and the Comité Circulation (Traffic-calming).  Over two thirds (68.2%) of respondents say that the decision-making process is meeting their expectations. Respondents whose expectations are not being met mention feeling that they are not consulted, that only some members contribute, or that the process is too constrained by financial and bureaucratic limitations. Others mention that the purpose of the Comités was not to make decisions or that no decision has been taken yet. For them, the deciding factor with respect to meeting their expectations will be whether the recommendations being made will be implemented.  As a result of their participation, a significant portion of respondents have identified personal learning with respect to several factors, as displayed in Figure 4.   Figure 4. Members’ learning experience in Comité aviseur     The experience of participating in a Comité aviseur seems to generate a greater number of learning experiences that relate to broad, borough-wide factors (governance, resources, perspectives) and fewer that pertain to interpersonal relations and group dynamics.  The respondents’ participation has also fostered a positive change in the way they see their neighborhood (56.5%) and their borough (73.9%). The experience has not produced the same change with respect to the Ville de Montréal, with 69.6% of respondents stating no change in perspective and 13% saying their participation has contributed to a more negative view of the Ville-centre.  
 21 For 56.5% of respondents, the workload is adequate, while an equal number of respondents consider the workload to be either heavy (17.4%) or not heavy enough (17.4%). Public servants and borough employees consider the workload to be either heavy or too heavy.  While most respondents (69.6%) believe that the Comité aviseurs’ work reflects the public interest, only 4.3% consider that the public knows about the Comités and no respondent agrees that the public is aware of the work they do. Further, 87% agree that it is important to include public opinion in the Comités’ work, but only 21.7% agree that the Comités consult with the public and seek out its opinion with respect to their area of intervention. A majority of respondents (59.1%) do not know whether the public considers the Comités as legitimate. There is awareness that the committees’ role is not consultative and that public consultation could bog down the work; however, members acknowledge the importance of some level of consultation and representativeness in the process.  c) Strengths, Weaknesses, Best Practices and Challenges  Respondents identified the following strengths related to the Comités aviseurs:  • efficient, concrete and innovative work; • a diversity of perspectives and debate; • the quality of members’ ideas, knowledge, experience and skills; • active citizen participation and commitment; • flexibility and adaptability; • collaboration between citizens, representatives and public servants.  The following weaknesses were identified:  • a lack of expertise and broad perspective from some members; • a lack of ‘average citizens’; • a lack of clarity around roles and structure; • the unavailability of time and information; • a tendency to act too rapidly; • a lack of follow-up (suivi); • poor information flow between meetings or between committees.  To date, the following practices have been the most useful for the Comités aviseurs:  • participation of a diverse membership; • direct contact and access to elected officials and public servants; • information and knowledge sharing; the commitment and quality of members’ participation; • meeting regularly; • encouraging creativity and innovation.  
 22 Finally, challenges were identified with respect to the following:  • dealing with administrative and bureaucratic procedures and constraints; • ensuring follow-up and monitoring; • consistency in contact with members; • communication and information flow; • clarity around direction and scope of the work; • the frequency of meetings.  d) Recommendations  With respect to member recruitment and selection, respondents made various suggestions:  • using criteria based on expertise and concrete (field) experience; • using criteria based on community involvement or participation; • reaching out to a broader audience (public callout) when seeking out members; • consulting or involving existing Comité members when recruiting additional members; • clarifying who has the responsibility and authority to recruit.  Respondents also put forth the following recommendations with regards to the aforementioned challenges:  • including public servants to a greater extent; • formalizing and standardizing some of the structure; • providing more direction, scoping and framing for deliverables; • increasing the membership’s diversity and representativeness; • improving communication, feedback and follow-up with members.   4.3. Additional Findings  Through interviews and focus groups conducted with various stakeholders, additional data was gathered. It has been synthesized and is presented below. Some of these findings, derived from other sources, converge with much of the survey data presented above. The additional findings are outlined as perceived or eventual needs that ought to be addressed as the Comité aviseurs move forward. Of course, it is important to recall the diversity of Comités and recognize that these needs may be more pressing and relevant to some committees than to others.  a) Need for more clarity and follow-up in the process  There is a need for more clarity on the process by which Comités aviseurs develop and submit projects and proposals to the public service. When possible, clarifying the nature of the relationship between Projet Montréal (and the Comités) and the public service, as 
 23 well as the latter’s expectations, would be useful at the outset. Following up on these expectations and keeping Comité aviseur members regularly informed on progress would also help alleviate Comité members’ concerns and frustrations about the time required between project submission and implementation.  The survey results speak to this frustration and uncertainty, as members were still waiting to see whether their work would bear fruit. There have also been cases where members, in an effort to obtain more information on submitted projects, have contacted public servants directly and overstepped the normal lines of communication. Again, this speaks to a need for clarity from the outset about the steps and the time required in the project evaluation and approval process. It also suggests a need for regular updates and follow-up between Projet Montréal, the public service and Comité members. Ideally, this would lead to a constructive feedback loop whereby members, staff and public servants can exchange information throughout the process.  b) Need for more formal meeting structure and process  There is a sense that meetings would be more productive and efficient if they were slightly more structured. Similarly, there would be more momentum in the committees’ work (both at the meetings and in between meetings) if meetings occurred at regular intervals.  In terms of structure, Comité meetings would benefit from adopting and following an agenda. Ensuring that discussions are focused on task and on agenda items would further increase efficiency and effectiveness.  With respect to meeting schedules, there is a sense that much of the energy is lost if a Comité does not meet for a significant period. Although there are certainly variations in a committee’s workload over time, it is believed that there is always work to be done and ideas to be generated on issues, even once projects have been submitted to the public service. Regular meetings also serve to keep the group together, up-to-date and better prepared when additional projects come along.  c) Need for documenting and managing information  There is very little documentation of the steps taken, the work done, and the results achieved by Comités aviseurs. This makes it difficult to monitor and assess progress and accomplishments. It also poses a challenge to accountability and transparency, as few of the decisions being made are recorded. Documenting and managing information such as the tasks completed, tasks yet to be accomplished, decisions made, timelines, roles and responsibilities could encourage more efficient and timely work while increasing accountability and access to information.  There is a perceived potential here for online storage and management of information. Increased documentation would also assist in informing and following-up with Comité members as projects and proposals evolve. 
 24 d) Need for more clearly-defined roles and responsibilities  There is a clear sense that leadership and direction are required to keep committees on track. However, there is currently some confusion as to where that leadership actually lies. The Comité Presidents, the political attachés and, on occasion, the Mayor all play fairly central roles in orienting the committees’ work. Moreover, the roles vary from one Comité aviseur to the other. Hence, there is also perceived confusion as to the specific roles and responsibilities of the Comités and their members.  In general, Projet Montréal provides Comités aviseurs with a written mandate. It contains the committee’s role and objectives as well as the responsibilities of elected officials, the public service and of Comité members. In practice, the roles are not as clearly defined. The President’s role, for instance, has been revised and is less formal than originally mandated.  Although the mandates describe roles and responsibilities to an extent, there is a perceived need to clarify or address the following questions, as outlined in Table 2.     
 25 Table 2. Outstanding questions with respect to roles and responsibilities  Responsibilities Key Questions of Clarification Leadership • Who is actually in a position of leadership? • Who makes decisions and how? • Who can call a meeting and who facilitates meetings? • Where is this information available? Recruitment • Who can recruit new members and what is the process? • Who needs to be involved in the decision to recruit? Information Management • Who sets the agenda? • Who takes minutes? • Who ensures that information is shared? • Where is the information stored, who can access it and how? Roles Key Questions of Clarification Suggestions and Specific Questions • What criteria are sought in a President?  • Proven leadership skills • Familiarity with issues • Awareness of context • Others? President • What are the expected tasks and responsibilities of a President?  • Active participation in all meetings • Meeting facilitation • Sharing and delegating tasks • Others? • What are the criteria for new member selection? • Expertise • Creativity • Resourcefulness • Related experience • Understanding complex issues • Demonstrated motivation • Community involvement • What type of diversity should be ensured in each Comité aviseur? • Geographical representation (by district) • Gender balance • Professional/expert and non- professional/expert representation • What is the expected commitment of members in terms of time and resources? • How much time per week? • Other necessary resources? • How long are they willing to commit? • How long is should a member’s term be? • Permanent? • On renewal basis? Members • Should there be a mechanism for de-selection? • What are the bases for de- selection? 
 26 While many questions remain, some Comités aviseurs have successfully defined roles and responsibilities and established a very functional division of labor. Figure 5 outlines some best practices that have been identified.   Figure 5. Best practices in Comité aviseur participation  
 Dividing the work with clear expectations – Comité cohabitation résidents- commerçants (Merchant-Resident Cohabitation)  The Comité aviseur meets every two weeks for three hours. Expectations around time and roles are clear. Time is kept and the committee President calls meetings to order and facilitates to ensure the group remains on topic and on task. A committee member volunteers to take and send meeting minutes in a timely manner. Meetings have a pre-set agenda. The climate is not overly formal, but everyone does his/her part in ensuring that tasks are completed. Often, there is homework to do. This is always the first agenda item at the next meeting, ensuring that people followed up on commitments. In this case, these roles emerged fairly organically. There is constant e-mail communication between meetings, as members keep each other posted on new information, new developments, resources, etc. Clear expectations, clear roles and good communication contribute to a well-functioning Comité.  Involving public servants  Another best practice relates to the participation of public servants in Comité aviseur meetings. As recipients of project proposals, their contributions and perspective on issues can serve to guide the Comités work. Direct participation allows for dialogue and debate with members. This curbs the public service’s tendency to be stagnant or rigid while promoting the submission of realistic proposals. It will be important to maintain pubic servants’ involvement, despite the extra work this may require from them. Projet Montréal will have to be strategic and efficient in involving public servants if they wish to do so sustainably.    e) Need for increased communication and coordination between Comités aviseurs  The Comités aviseurs work on issues, problems and solutions that are often very closely related. It is therefore important that there be effective communication between committees. So far, this communication is dependent on Projet Montréal staff (mayor, councilors, political attachés) who sit on the Comités or on members who sit on more than one committee. There is inter-committee communication to the extent that these people share information.  
 27 There is a perceived need for information about ongoing and planned work to be shared across Comités, or for more inter-committee communication and collaboration. There is also willingness from some members for a more direct contact with members from other committees. There is potential here for an online community or forum, as well as semi- regular in-person meetings and exchanges. This is also believed to further contribute to member’s motivation. The evening organized in June 2010 by Projet Montréal in recognition of committee members’ contributions seems to be a step in the right direction. All members were invited and could share their experiences, findings and accomplishments.  In line with some of the previous needs, a more systematic practice of managing information and making it available to all Comité aviseur members would contribute to increased communication and vision. It would lead to a more transparent and accountable process. There is also potential for this type of system to serve as a data source for monitoring the Comités.  The lack of communication is particularly crucial between committees that depend on one another. To date, there seems to be an indirect correlation between the breadth of a Comité’s mandate and its focus and efficiency in achieving objectives. That is, the more narrow and technical the issue at hand is, the more focused and efficient the process of achieving results seems to be.  There are also links that have emerged between the mandates of Comités, as displayed in Figure 6. For example, the more technical decisions made in the Comité circulation (Traffic-Calming) and Comité stationnement (Parking) have had a direct effect on the work of the Comité aménagement (Urban Planning/Design) and Comité bruit (Noise) respectively, and so on.   Figure 6. Groupings of Comités aviseur according to related mandates     Given the logical interconnections between Comités and the desire of members to be more informed, it becomes apparent that effective communication and coordination between all committees should greatly enhance the overall success of the Comités aviseurs.  
 28 f) Need to incorporate public opinion  The Comité aviseur mandates read:  The committee does not have a role of public representativeness within an exercise of participatory democracy. It executes mandates that have been expressed by the population and ratified by the electoral platform of the recently elected team12 (Comité Champs, 2010, p. 1).  Evidently, the assessment and consolidation of public opinion is not at the centre of the Comités’ work. The mandates add that “a committee may ask the assigned elected official to organize a public consultation – if it believes the consultation will help move the work forward13” (2010, p. 3).  There is a link to be explored between the Comités aviseurs and the general public. The latter could have a few different roles to play:  • Comités aviseurs as public representation  Some members who sit on committees as residents see themselves as representatives of the general public. There is a sense that the public has to be present somewhere in the process, but that it cannot be involved at every stage. They mention that it is important that Comité members serve as a relay or conduit between the public and the borough administration.  The Comités aviseurs then serve as a space to convey the public opinion.  There is an assumption that if Projet Montréal was elected on their platform, a majority of people wants work to get done based on that platform. Members can consult the public on a small scale and maintain people informed, but it is not a primary role.  • Increase public access to Comités aviseurs  Eighty-one percent (81%) of survey respondents were chosen or appointed to a Comité. Aside from an invitation at a Council meeting and a few postings on Projet Montréal- related websites and blogs, the first Comités aviseurs were formed with relatively little public notice. Although the committees’ work seems to be in line with a significant proportion of the public, there is still an opportunity to make them and their work more accessible to the population.  First, with increased publicity, more citizens could voice their concerns and priorities to the Comités. Although there is a risk that the public opinion might focus on personal 























































 12 “Le comité n’a pas un rôle de représentativité de la population dans un exercice de démocratie participative. Il exécute des mandats exprimés par la population et entérinés par la plate-forme électorale de l’équipe récemment portée au pouvoir.” 13 “Le comité peut demander à l’élu responsable d’organiser une consultation publique – s’il juge qu’elle est de nature à faire évoluer ses travaux.”  
 
 29 complaints and make the committees’ work more inefficient, this could be mitigated by providing accurate information to the public as to the Comité’s actual role. There is also a potential for a more ‘open door’ approach, whereby citizens who voice their concerns to Projet Montréal and who have a willingness to act upon them, could be invited to join a committee. It would be important not only to publicize the Comité aviseurs’ work, but also the responsibilities and expectations that come with being a member. Again, there is online potential for much of this increased publicity, although this would require managing the information such that sensitive and/or ongoing work does not get published prematurely.  • Combine Comités’ work with public consultation  In cases where the public opinion is sought more directly and on a broader scale, there is potential to combine the Comités’ work with public consultations. The Comités aviseurs are action committees, not consultation committees. Therefore, there is a sense that they should not carry the responsibility of public consultation. However, the outcomes, results and proposals drafted by the committees may, in some cases, benefit from being put to public consultation. The public could use this opportunity to suggest changes or adjustments, provide feedback to Comité members and Projet Montréal, as well as provide new information that may make for stronger final projects and proposals. The responsibility to bring these proposals to the public would lie with the party, not the committees. This would hopefully lead to a constructive dialogue between the Comités aviseurs, the party and the public. Finally, there is an opportunity to capitalize on the monthly Borough Council meetings as a venue for this dialogue. Indeed, Projet Montréal seems to have acknowledged this, as the Comité ruelles commerciales (Commercial Alleyways) has already used this space to present findings to the public.  • Invite public to participate  Finally, there may be an opportunity for more direct public participation, as the Plateau’s experience with participatory budgeting shows. There is a potential to frame the Comité’s work within a broader citizen engagement and civic capacity-building strategy where the public would have a stronger weight in determining priorities and issues. Exploring a ‘hybrid’ form of participatory budgeting, with Comités aviseurs as action committees, could rekindle broad public participation and bolster the committees’ transparency, accountability and ultimately, legitimacy. There is also a potential to engage people in this type of process by using online forums or discussions.   Regardless of the extent to which Projet Montréal wishes to involve the public, doing so will build civic capacity on the Plateau-Mont-Royal. That is, “the capacity to devise, decide, and act collectively to improve our lives” (De Souza Briggs, 2008, p. 11). This requires “institutions that combine learning and bargaining effectively and constantly rather than divorcing dialogue from forging wise agreements; multiple forms of accountability—pressure politics, markets, negotiated compacts, codified rights, and more—to make “solutions” more broadly legitimate and sustainable” (2008, p.12). As 
 30 Projet Montréal moves forward, it is important to remember that it is not participation for the sake participation that makes democracy strong or effective; rather, it is the way participation is structured to achieve social progress. In this sense, De Souza Briggs reminds us of the contribution of involving groups and interests that are likely to oppose a mandate or proposal. Success stories have tended to involve these interests early on in the process.  g) Need for budget and resources  Projet Montréal currently provides a budget for uses related to research, such as the purchase of online documents, printing, food, etc.14 (Comité Champs, 2010, p. 3). It is projected that more funds will be allocated to the Comités aviseurs next year, potentially for additional human resources (e.g. researchers, interns). This speaks to Projet Montréal’s medium- and long-term commitment to the committees and may provide an opportunity to address many of the needs outlined in this section of the report.  h) Need to acknowledge and foster members’ motivation  As the Comités aviseurs’ success relies on the volunteer efforts of residents and professional, it is of paramount importance that members remain motivated to participate. In this sense, Projet Montréal must acknowledge and foster what it is that motivates people to spend time and energy on the committees’ work. Broadly, members have stated the following motivational factors: the opportunity to have an impact on their environment, to effect change, to have some influence on how decisions get made at the borough level, to solve problems, improve the neighborhood and overcome the public service’s tendency to lack creativity. At this stage, member buy-in seems to be strong and there is hope that the Comités continue working for the whole duration of Projet Montréal’s term. By ensuring a sound process, it is more likely that this buy-in and motivation will remain strong in the long run.  























































 14 “doivent être utilisées pour faciliter les recherches (lunchs, commande de documents sur le web, impressions, etc.” 
 
 31 5. Analysis: Good Governance and Comités Aviseurs   By creating and implementing the Comités aviseurs, Projet Montréal is experimenting with an innovative model of municipal governance and engaging residents and professionals as volunteers in the development of municipal projects and policies. As the previous section illustrates, the model seems to be relatively successful thus far. The current strategy seems to be less resistant to change and less conservative than previous ‘traditional’ administrations, and more efficient than previous public engagement strategies. There are, however, certain considerations to address in exploring this governance model’s long-term viability.  In order to examine this, it can be useful to adopt an analytical framework based on good governance. As Projet Montréal moves forward with a governance model that engages citizens in policy and project development, it is also relevant to consider strategies for institutionalizing and monitoring the Comités aviseurs.   5.1. Good Governance Framework and Indicators  There is a wealth of literature on the importance and benefits of “good governance” and a variety of definitions for the concept. For the purposes of this report, governance will be understood as:  the act of governing in a wide sense. The term covers public administration and the institutions, methods and instruments of governing. It further incorporates relationships between government and citizen (including business and other citizen groupings) and the role of the state (OECD, as cited in Callahan, 2005, p. 911).  Governance, in this sense, can include a broad variety of actors within an accountable institutional structure. It can, and often does, incorporate civil society actors such as NGOs as well as the public at large into the core activities of government – what Ackerman calls ‘co-governance’ (2004, p. 458-459).  Governance is said to be “good” when it allocates and manages resources according to certain agreed-upon principles, or criteria. According to Cheema, these principles include “human rights, democratization and democracy, transparency, participation and decentralized power sharing, sound public administration, accountability, rule of law, effectiveness, equity, and strategic vision” (as cited in DESA, 2007, p. 4). The UN- ESCAP adds participation, consensus orientation, responsiveness and inclusivity to its characteristics of good governance (GDRC, 2010).  If good governance is to be evaluated against such principles, then it is essential to establish indicators that can measure the extent to which a governing body is achieving it. Some frameworks (see UNDP, 2000) have developed rather comprehensive series of 
 32 good governance indicators, based on such elements as those listed above. Effectively monitoring governance based on that many indicators requires substantial capacity and resources. Other frameworks have focused on a smaller number of ‘core’ indicators to monitor the public sector. DESA, for instance, focuses on 1) Efficiency, 2) Transparency and 3) Participation (2007, p. 40). This may serve as a good basis on which to analyze the Comité aviseur model.   5.2. Projet Montréal, Comités aviseurs and Good Governance  5.2.1. Efficiency  Efficiency can relate to both the cost per service delivered by a public administration or, in a broader sense, “the allocation of public spending and the institutions of government and its capacity to manage the economy and to implement its policies in a stable and predictable manner” (2007, p. 40).  Increased efficiency in project and policy development and implementation is one of Projet Montréal’s primary objectives in working with Comités aviseurs. It is still rather early to fully assess whether the initiative has increased efficiency. However, using the quantity and quality of proposals already submitted to the public service as an indicator, there seems to be a marked improvement in efficiency when compared to previous administrations. A significant number of projects have been submitted to the public service in a very short period of time – to the extent that it has created bottlenecks in the public service. At this stage, the timeframe seems to be too short to assess whether this governance model will be ‘predictable and stable’ in its management and implementation.  5.2.2. Transparency  Transparency is understood as the unimpeded flow of information from the government to the public and vice versa. It also actively seeks input and feedback from the public to government. It is closely linked to accountability; that is, the processes and mechanisms by which public officials are held responsible for their decisions and actions (Ackerman, 2004, p. 448). Both transparency and accountability are essential in upholding the legitimacy of government (UNDP, 2007, p. 7) – and therefore, of a governance model.  The Comité aviseur model is proving to be quite transparent for the members that are directly involved. Information is shared to a great extent and there is consistent dialogue and feedback between elected officials and citizens. It is much less transparent to the public at large. This may be due in part to its relatively short existence period, but there seems to be some work to do in increasing public awareness and access to information about the Comités aviseurs. Improvements in transparency with the public at large will also increase the level of accountability of both elected officials and Comité aviseur members. With improved information flow between government and citizens who do not sit on the committees, proposals and decision will be better informed, more accountable 
 33 and consequently the process will likely contribute to the governance model’s legitimacy.  5.2.3. Participation  Participation requires that all citizens “have a voice in decision-making, either directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests” (GDRC, 2010). Without participation “the only actors who will put to use the new information are journalists, academics, nonprofit organizations and already existing community organizations.” As Ackerman argues, “although these groups are indeed crucial in maintaining accountability, […] there is a qualitative forward leap when the population at large [is] directly involved in enforcing accountability” (2004, p. 459).  There exists a great variety of means by which participation can be achieved, including institutionalized consultative mechanisms, online (e-government) tools, and initiatives based in participatory democracy, such as participatory budgeting, to name but a few. Participation is not only essential to a government’s legitimacy (UNDP, 2007, p. 42), but it is also the means to achieve an engaged citizenry (UNESC, 2007, p. 4).  By means of the Comités aviseurs, Projet Montréal has indeed engaged a number of citizens in a participatory form of municipal governance in the Plateau-Mont-Royal. Before discussing institutionalization, it is useful to recognize the context in which this participation is occurring.  • Montreal’s Public Consultation and Participation Policy  Stemming from the 2002 Summit of Montreal, the City developed a framework and a set of principles to promote and guide public consultation and participation. It defines consultation as “two-way communication process in which citizens provide feedback to the municipal administration” and participation as “as a partnership between the public and its municipal administration [that] is based upon the active engagement of citizens in the development of policies, programs and projects” (Ville de Montréal, n.d.). The Comités’ work seems to correspond to both these processes.  • Projet Montréal and Participation  As discussed in Section 2.3 of this report, Projet Montréal holds the participation and engagement of citizens as one of its key principles. As part of its ‘Democracy and Governance’ program and platform, it is committed to instituting a series of measures and policy changes that seek to foster a more participatory form of governance and a more engaged population (Projet Montréal, 2010b).  • Plateau-Mont-Royal and Participation  The Plateau-Mont-Royal has recently explored a highly participatory and engaging form of municipal governance with the 2006-2008 participatory budget. As Anne Latendresse states, there is an institutional legacy and an integrated norm of public participation in the 
 34 public apparatus. There is a culture of consultation along with its limitations15 (2010, p.12). This is the institutional context within which the Comités aviseurs must function and it would seem advantageous to capitalize on this legacy of public consultation and participation.   As a means to ensure the sustainability of the Comité aviseur model, then, it would seem instrumental to institutionalize good governance by promoting efficiency, transparency and participation.   5.3. Institutionalizing ‘Good’ Participatory Governance   Once initiated, Ackerman argues, the best way to assure the sustainability of a participatory framework is through its institutionalization. He states that there are three different levels at which participatory mechanisms can be institutionalized.  First, participatory mechanisms can be built into the strategic plans of existing government agencies. Second, new agencies can be created whose goal is to assure societal participation in government activities. Third, participatory mechanisms can be inscribed in law (2004, p. 459).  Similarly, Fung and Wright assert that the following institutional design features can stabilize and deepen a participatory and deliberative governance model:  (1) the devolution of public decision authority to empowered local units; (2) the creation of formal linkages of responsibility, resource distribution, and communication that connect these units to each other and to superordinate, more centralized authorities; and (3) the use and generation of new state institutions to support and guide these decentered problem solving efforts rather than leaving them as informal or voluntary affairs. (2001, p. 17)  Compared against these characteristics, Projet Montréal has institutionalized participatory governance to an extent. In seeking the best strategies to further institutionalize Comités aviseurs, it is important to consider whether the conditions are favorable. Irvin and Stanbury (2004) have developed a series of indicators to help determine if the conditions in a given context are favorable to institutionalizing citizen participation.    























































 15 “Un legs institutionnel. Depuis l’époque du RCM, intégration d’une norme de participation publique dans l’appareil municipal. Une culture de la consultation avec toutes ses limites.” 
 35 Figure 7. Cost and benefit indicators for citizen participation  Low-Cost Indicators High-Cost Indicators • Citizens readily volunteer for projects that benefit the entire community • Key stakeholders are not too geographically dispersed; participants can easily reach meetings • Citizens have enough income to attend meetings without harming their ability to provide for their families • The community is homogenous, so the group requires fewer representatives of interest groups; smaller groups speed decision-making • The topic does not require representatives to master complex technical information quickly • An acquiescent public is reluctant to get involved in what is considered the job of government employees • The region is geographically large or presents other obstacles that make regular meetings difficult • Many competing factions or socioeconomic groups require a very large participatory group • Low-income residents are key stakeholders for the issue at hand and should be included, yet they cannot because of work and family priorities • Complex technical knowledge is required before participants can make decisions • The public does not recognize the issue as a problem High-Benefit Indicators  Low-Benefit Indicators •  The issue is gridlocked and a citizen mandate is needed to break the gridlock • Hostility towards government entities is high, and the agency seeks validation from community members • Community members with particularly strong influence are willing to serve as representatives • The group facilitator has credibility with all the representatives • The issue is of high interest to stakeholders • The public is generally not hostile towards government entities • The agency has had prior success in implementing policy without citizen participation • The population is large, making it difficult for involved stakeholders to influence a significant portion of the population • The decisions of the group are likely to be ignored (group does not have authority to make policy decision) • Decisions of the group are likely to be the same decisions produced by government entities Adapted from: Irvin and Stanbury, 2004, p. 62.   This basic cost-benefit analysis can be applied on two levels. First, it can help assess whether it is worth forming a new Comité aviseur on a particular issue. Second, it can help a Comité aviseur decide whether to engage in broader public consultation or participation with respect to its work.  
 36 On the Plateau-Mont-Royal, the conditions do seem favorable for the development and implementation of a governance structure that relies on citizens’ participation. Given this, the issue for Projet Montréal does not seem to be that of setting up and experimenting with the Comités aviseurs. Rather, the challenge becomes: how to institutionalize the model such that it can be sustained through the electoral term (and beyond)?  Figure 8 presents the Comités’ strengths and weaknesses as well as the opportunities and threats it faces in exploring how to institutionalize the model such that it promotes good governance over time.   Figure 8. SWOT Analysis of Comités aviseurs 
 Strengths Weaknesses • Efficient in generating and developing projects and proposals • Committed elected officials • Committed citizens, professionals, experts • Participation from public servants • Creative thinking, innovative ideas • Capacity for quality research • Common vision between most citizens and officials • Cost effective (volunteer) • Access to public opinion through previous consultations (PDU, PB, etc.) • Concrete platform with clear actions and priorities • Activist administration • Availability of some funds • Connects citizens to public servants • Involvement of unorganized and organized citizens • Not open to the general public • Inconsistency from one Comité to the next • Shortsightedness of certain members • Lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities of members • Irregular workload (lulls, strain on bureaucracy, dip in momentum) • Irregular meeting schedule • Unclear medium- or long-term timeline • Comités aviseurs little known by population • Little communication between members of different Comités • Little communication with public • Little publicly available information  Opportunities Threats • Combining Comité expertise with public consultation and participation • Ad hoc committee formation • Potential combination with some variation of the PB model • To channel public participation from Borough Council meetings into Comités’ work • Highly educated public • High computer literacy and online access in borough • Comités risk being seen by public as exclusive or partisan • Self-interested positions • Professional members eventually seeking compensation for work (limits of volunteerism) • Little participation from traditionally marginalized groups or stakeholders • Little presence from multi-cultural and ethnic communities  
 37 According to this analysis, the strengths and opportunities would justify making the long- term viability of this model a priority. In addition, many of the weaknesses have already been identified and could be addressed with a few modifications. One such modification is to embed the Comités aviseurs within a broader participatory governance framework whereby the link with the public is strengthened. The Recommendations section below will explore options that Projet Montréal could consider in further institutionalizing this governance model.  Of course, as in any system, it is also essential to monitor the process and progress towards desired outcome.   5.4. Monitoring Participatory Governance and Citizen Engagement  “Citizen engagement is the desired outcome or logical end of participatory governance” (UNESC, 2007, p.4). It is therefore worth examining citizen engagement in the context of the Comités aviseurs.  If Projet Montréal hopes to institutionalize the Comité aviseur model such that it is viable in the long term, it is important to incorporate a monitoring and evaluation framework by which to assess whether the committees are on track with the objectives. In her evaluation of citizen engagement in policy-making, Motsi uses a public participation evaluation framework developed by Involve and the National Consumer Council in the UK (2009, p. 2). This framework could serve as a basis upon which Projet Montréal can monitor and adjust the Comités aviseurs governance model. It contains five key factors. For each one, there is a brief discussion of the Comités aviseurs’ current status as well as key points that will likely need to be addressed if the administration wishes to sustain a governance model that is efficient, transparent, accountable and participatory.  1. Purpose: the reason why a public participation exercise has been established.  In each Comités aviseurs’ mandate, the purpose, role and objectives are expressed. The broader general purpose of creating and implementing the Comités, however, is less explicit. There is a sense that this governance model aims to increase efficiency, engage highly motivated and highly skilled citizens and groups and that it seeks to contribute to implementing the party’s platform. Because there is such a variety in the nature of specific committee mandates, it is important to have a strong and clear purpose that is shared among all Comités. Furthermore, making this purpose accessible beyond the Comité members would also increase transparency and accountability.  2. Process: the process that is followed in a participatory exercise; that is, the mechanism used in order to obtain the public input.  The process is largely one of engaging citizens and professionals in regular meetings (and individual or group work) where project and policy proposals are researched, advanced and developed. There is direct contact and close cooperation with elected officials, Projet 
 38 Montréal staff and public servants. This mechanism is very effective in getting the input of those citizens that sit on a committee. So far, it has not sought the input of the wider population to a considerable extent. Given that a majority of members were directly appointed and that the Comités are little known to the public, there is little room for citizens outside the committees to provide input in the current process.  3. People: the people involved in any capacity in the participatory exercises.  The people involved are elected officials, party staff, public servants, local professionals and experts, Plateau-Mont-Royal residents and, on occasions, other guests (from the City of Montreal, academic institutions, etc.). It was not the intention of Projet Montréal to involve a representative sample of the population in the committees. However, there seems to be a need to more properly define the norms and criteria by which future members will be selected as well as the conditions and expectations around a member’s term.  4. Context: the contextual and environmental factors that mediate the effectiveness of the participation exercise and the methods that are used.  The context within which the Comités aviseurs were instated is a rather favorable one. Although there was little economic resource to conduct a participatory exercise on the scale of a participatory budget, there was political will and energy to engage citizens. There was also a presence of civil society actors and residents who were willing to work on the issues in a longer-term capacity and as volunteers. This exercise is also in line with the culture of consultation and participation that exists in Montreal (see Section 5.2.3).  5. Outcome: the results and achievements, as linked to the purpose. It also includes whether there is better decisions, better citizens, public acceptance and relevance.  It is still too early to assess whether results are leading to better decisions. One seemingly positive indicator is the public service’s satisfaction with the quality of projects and policies being proposed by the Comités aviseurs. These quality proposals are also being submitted in significant quantity, which also points to the efficiency of decision-making. In terms of impacts on citizens, the survey responses illustrate that members are already learning from their participation.  Another consideration is the public’s perception and acceptance of the outcomes. Priorities are largely based on the results of previous consultations and on the electoral platform that brought Projet Montréal into office. Over time, it will become increasingly important to solicit the broader public’s input and priorities on new proposals. This will ensure that outcomes meet current public expectations and that decisions are relevant. It will further contribute to the transparency, accountability and legitimacy of the Comité aviseur model.   
 39 This framework is by no means comprehensive. However, it may serve as a starting point for a basis on which Projet Montréal can monitor its Comités aviseurs and contribute to the governance model’s sustainability (for the whole term and, if possible, beyond). As with any monitoring tool, this will be most effective if it is built into the process from the outset, or as early on in the process as possible   5.5. Lessons from the Ottawa and Guelph16  In the Canadian context, the City of Ottawa has experimented with a similar municipal governance structure, with 16 Advisory Committees working on issues as diverse as business, equity and diversity, local architectural conservation, rural issues, and so forth. Similarly to the Comités aviseurs, Advisory Committees “provide advice to City Council and staff on specifically mandated areas of interest, and contribute to the development of policies, programs and initiatives” (City of Ottawa, 2010). They are also made up of volunteer citizens and representatives.  They differ in the extent to which they actually develop projects and proposals for implementation. The model also seems to differ in its institutionalization and formalization. For instance, with the Advisory Committees, meeting schedules and minutes are available online, meetings are open to the public, meeting times are published in the local newspaper and there is an annual recruitment drive for members. This is one example of volunteer committees that are institutionalized in such a way that promotes transparency and public participation.  A second example of institutionalized Advisory Committees is the City of Guelph. Again, meeting agendas and minutes are available online and meetings are regular, open and publicized (City of Guelph, 2010). Committee mandates, responsibilities, procedures, protocols and processes are also made public (City of Guelph, 2008, p. 4).   























































 16 There are other examples, within the Canadian context, of citizen engagement based on consultative committees, neighborhood councils and the like. Details are not provided in this section, as these examples tend to differ from the Comités aviseurs in their mandate and composition. The cases of Ottawa and Guelph are presented for the insight they provide into institutionalizing committee-based models in a way that promotes transparency and participation. For a discussion of other models, see also Dionne, Faucher and Martel’s discussion of the City of Québec’s Conseils de quartiers (1998, p. 94-112). 
 40 6. Conclusion   The Comité aviseurs are at an important juncture. Projet Montréal has been experimenting with the model long enough for the first outputs to emerge. This initial experience will inform the administration’s approach to the Comités in future months.  This report has focused on the process by which the Comités have operated thus far and has sought to identify how the Plateau-Mont-Royal administration can sustainably ensure good governance through this model. Of course, these are preliminary results and Projet Montréal’s ongoing willingness to critically assess and adjust its work will be indispensable as they move forward. As Stone (2001) reminds us, “significant problem solving is generally about doing the nonroutine” (as cited in De Souza Briggs, 2008, p. 8). It is natural then, that Projet Montréal’s experiment with a ‘non-routine’ governance model will lead to challenges requiring creative solutions.  As more projects and proposals are implemented, the impacts of this governance model will become clearer. Based on the experience to date, the Comité aviseur model seems to be successful. The membership survey indicated a general satisfaction with the Comités’ roles and functioning, as well as with the nature of participation within committees. The process has been efficient and the public service has stated its satisfaction with the quality of proposals received.  Despite these encouraging indicators, certain considerations emerged with regards to the Comités aviseurs long-term viability. These include a need for more clarity and follow-up in structure and process, for documentation and information management, for clearer roles and responsibilities, for increased communication and coordination between Comités. There is also a sense that the public ought to be included in some capacity.  All of these needs correspond to the challenges of institutionalizing and monitoring good governance at the municipal level. A good governance framework requires adherence to a set of principles and is characterized by efficiency, transparency and participation. The Comité aviseur model is an experiment in participatory governance and it has proved to be efficient. For the citizens that are involved, the process has also been a transparent and participatory. On the other hand, for the majority of citizens who are not directly involved, there has been little transparency and few opportunities to participate thus far. Some of the recommendations included in the final section of this report seek to address this.  When exploring models to engage citizens in municipal governance, there is no single tool or approach to lead to desired results. Often, the best fit is a mix of strategies that are modified and adapted to the local context and priorities (OECD, 2001, p. 4). While Projet Montréal is doing commendable work in attempting to govern in an innovative fashion, it will be important to uphold a willingness to respond to the evolving context and reality of the Comités. Doing so will facilitate the gradual institutionalization of the Comité aviseur model such that it can be monitored and sustained for the duration of the electoral term. 
 41  With ongoing success, this model may serve as an example for municipalities with similar profiles that wish to implement ‘good’ participatory governance. 
 42 RECOMMENDATIONS   The following set of recommendations is proposed to the Projet Montréal administration. It provides suggestions and options for the institutionalization of the Comité aviseur, keeping a focus on the governance model’s long-term viability.  For each recommendation, a rationale and a number of possible actions are provided. This list of recommendations is by no means comprehensive and not all actions are equally pressing. Some recommendations and actions can be implemented more promptly and easily than others. Projet Montréal can assess its priorities for the Comités aviseurs and select those actions that best correspond to their needs.   Based on this report’s findings and analysis, it is recommended that Projet Montréal:   1. Ensure clarity of process and regular follow-up with Comité aviseur members  Rationale  This can avoid or address confusion related to roles, responsibilities and timelines. It provides more open communication between members, Projet Montréal and the public service.  Options for Actions  • Clarify objectives and expectation from the outset • Provide information promptly or upon receipt • Ensure regular information flow: e.g. electronic newsletter to all Comités, postings on online forum or website • Conduct ‘check-ins’ as needed: opportunities for members to voice concerns and share suggestions about the process                
 43 2. Formalize Comité aviseur meetings  Rationale  This can assist in maintaining a consistent communication flow with members and can help build momentum in the work. Members identified this as a motivating factor. This may also encourage a more regular participation from public servants.  Options for Actions  • Have meetings at regular intervals and for a predetermined amount of time • Ensure meetings have clear agenda and facilitation to keep conversation on track • Record and share minutes in a timely manner • Assign tasks and follow up on progress    3. Clarify roles and responsibilities  Rationale  Revising and clearly expressing the roles of political attachés, Presidents and member will help clarify leadership within the Comités. Clear leadership will improve efficiency and effectiveness.  Options for Actions  • Review the roles and responsibilities of members • Review the roles and responsibilities of Presidents • Review the roles and responsibilities of political attachés • Define the leadership: Ensure clear communication and information sharing between attachés and Presidents before and between meetings • Explore possibility of establishing a “Co-Presidency”: combining a volunteer member (president) with a political staff person (attaché) to ensure leadership • Clarify criteria for member selection            
 44 4. Centralize and manage information for transparency and accountability  Rationale  Accessible information will increase transparency and accountability. It can increase efficiency, as Comités can more easily gain access to information, resources and solutions from other Comités.  Options for Actions  • Record and publish (e.g. website or email updates) key information from meetings: minutes, decisions taken, useful resources, etc. • Maintain access to sensitive information secure • Make non-confidential information accessible to public • Increase visibility and public awareness of Comité aviseurs by publicizing their work    5. Ensure coordination and communication between Comités aviseurs  Rationale  The mandates and objectives of many Comité aviseurs are interrelated and interdependent. Good inter-Comité coordination and communication will contribute to the governance model’s efficiency and to a more integrated set of policy and projects at the borough level.  Options for Actions  • Record and disseminate minutes and progress reports from all Comités to all Comité members. • Ensure that the leadership (political staff person and/or President) are up-to-date on the work of other Comités                 
 45 6. Allocate appropriate resources to improve the governance model  Rationale  • The administration is capitalizing on the wealth of volunteer human resources that exists in the borough. To ensure volunteer members and public servants are motivated and committed in the long run, it is essential to support and facilitate their contributions by investing in a sound process. Many of the actions recommended in this section require (financial and human) resources for their implementation. The workload this requires may be too substantial for current staff.  Options for Actions  • Ensure the availability of funds for expenses related to the management of the Comité aviseur model • Create a Comité aviseur Coordinator position (or ensure that staff taking on this role are adequately supported and have enough time to complete tasks).    7. Integrate the Comités aviseurs within a broader public participation framework  Rationale  The Comités’ current work is based on the results of previous public consultation processes. As the work progresses, priorities in the Plateau- Mont-Royal will shift. It will be important for Projet Montréal, given its mandate to foster good governance at the municipal level, to keep up with shifting priorities. Broader public consultation and participation will ensure this. It will also promote transparency and accountability.  Options for Actions  • Explore possibilities of adapting the participatory budget such that it is compatible with the Comités aviseurs. • Submit the outputs (proposals and recommendations) of Comités aviseurs to public consultation. • Explore the possibility of establishing annual or bi-annual ‘Citizen Forum’ – an open public meeting that would serve to: o Increase public awareness of the role and work of Comités aviseurs o Gather public feedback on projects and proposals submitted and implemented to date o Report back to the public on the Comités’ ongoing work o Gather public opinion and priorities to better inform the Comités’ upcoming work o Recruit or renew Comité aviseur membership o Create a space for public debate 
 46 o Inform public on budgetary spending (previous cycle) and collect priorities (to inform the next budgetary cycle) • Explore e-government and e-democracy, allowing for citizens to contribute and participate online • Actively seek out the participation of traditionally marginalized sectors (low-income, seniors, non-French speakers, etc.)    8. Establish norms for future Comités aviseur formation  Rationale  Existing Comités will eventually fulfill their mandates and new issues will emerge requiring the work of new Comités. To ensure efficient and effective work while maintaining flexibility and transparency, it is important to clarify the norms that will guide future committees.  Options for Actions  • Before a Comité aviseur is dissolved, conduct an evaluation of the committees’ process and identify strengths and weaknesses • Build on experience of existing or previous Comités • Ensure public access when recruiting members • Use clear criteria with respect to committee composition and member selection, including: o Personal expertise, experience and motivation o Status: professional or expert vs. non-expert resident o Gender (with at least 60%-40% representation) o District of residence o Other criteria depending on the mandate (ex: low-income representation on social housing committee) • Coordinate with public service to establish recruitment criteria, mandates, objectives               
 47 9. Monitor and evaluate Comités aviseurs  Rationale  This is essential for Projet Montréal to learn about and bring improvements to the process. It allows for proper intervention and modification when Comités are struggling to deliver results. It also facilitates accountability.  Options for Actions  • Give members regular opportunities to provide recommendations on: roles, responsibilities, workload and process. This could be done verbally or with the use of tools such as surveys • Collect feedback from the public service with respect to the quality and quantity of proposals submitted. Ensure that Comité outputs are in line with expectations • Report on progress and challenges and document adjustments made to the process or structure. This information can be shared between Comités.    Although these recommendations may add to Projet Montréal’s workload in the short- term, investing resources in institutionalizing good governance ought to generate long- term payout. By implementing some of the proposed recommendations and actions, it is hoped that the Comité aviseur model will increasingly foster an efficient, transparent, accountable and participatory governance process, and do so sustainably for the remainder of Projet Montréal’s term (and beyond).  
 48 REFERENCES   Ackerman, J.  (2004).  Co-Governance for Accountability: Beyond “Exit” and “Voice”.  World Development, 32(3), 447–463. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.015  Alfaro, D.  (2010, April 19).  “Montreal’s borough system.”  Retrieved from  http://meslin.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/boroughs/  Bond, S. et al.  (2007).  Institutionalizing Civic Engagement for Building Trust: The Case for the Economic and Social Councils. UNPAN. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan026528.pdf.  Brousselle, A. et al.  (Eds.).  (2009).  L’Évaluation: concepts et méthodes.  Montréal: Les  Presses de l’Université de Montréal.  Callahan, M.  (2005).  Institutionalizing Participation and Governance? New Participative Structures in Local Government in Ireland. Public Administration, 83(4), 909- 929.  Comité aviseur sur la circulation: Document d’encadrement. (2010).  Montreal.  Comité aviseur sur le bruit: Document d’encadrement. (2010).  Montreal. 
 Comité aviseur sur le verdissement: Document d’encadrement. (2010).  Montreal.  Comité cohabitation résidents-commerçants: Rapport et recommandations. (2010). Montreal. 
 Comité de conception du Champs des possibles: Document d’encadrement. (2010). Montreal.  City of Guelph.  (2010).  “City Hall: Agendas and Minutes.”  Retrieved from http://guelph.ca/cityhall.cfm?SubCatId=2093&smocid=2666.  City of Guelph.  (2008).  City of Guelph Environmental Advisory Committee Guidebook, Version 1.3: Mandate, Responsibilities, Procedures and Protocols, Process. Guelph.  Retrieved from http://guelph.ca/uploads/PBS_Dept/planning/documents/EAC/Guidebook_Consol idated.pdf.  City of Ottawa.  (2010). “Your City Government.”  Retrieved from  http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/mayor_council/index_en.html.  Davidson, E. J.  (2005).  Evaluation Methodology Basics: The Nuts and Bolts of Sound  Evaluation.  Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 
 49 Department of Economic and Social Affairs.  (2007).  Public Governance Indicators : A Literature Review.  New York: United Nations. 
 De Souza Briggs, X.  (2008).  Democracy as Problem-Solving: Civic Capacity in Communities Across the Globe.  Cambridge: The MIT Press.  Dionne, J., C. Faucher and A. Martel.  (1998).  Les conseils de quartier à Québec.  In Graham, K. A. and S. D. Phillips (Eds.), Citizen Engagement: Lessons in Participation from Local Government (pp. 94-112).  Toronto: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada.  Dubuc, B. (Producer, Director).  (2009).  La fin du Néandertal: Un projet pour Montréal. Canada: Copyleft.  Retrieved from http://pages.videotron.com/brunodub/la%20fin%20du%20neandertal.html  Fung, A. and E. O. Wright.  (2001).  Deepening Democracy : Innovations in  Empowered Participatory Governance. Politics and Society, 29(1), 5-41.  Gaventa, J., R. McGee and T. Zipfel.  (2007). “How do Local Governments Support Citizen Engagement? Background note for the International Workshop for Champions of Participation in Local Government, Institute of Development Studies, May 29 - June 4, 2007.” Institute of Development Studies.  Global Development Research Center.  (2010).  “UN-ESCAP: What is Good Governance?”  Retrieved from http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/escap-governance.htm.  Irvin, R. and J. Stanbury.  (2004).  Citizen articipation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?  Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.  Latendresse, A.  (2010).  Le BP du Plateau-Mont-Royal: Évaluation d’une experience unique à Montréal. Preliminary document presented to Plateau-Mont-Royal administration, March 2010. Report forthcoming.  Lerner, J., and E. Van Wagner.  (2006).  Participatory Budgeting in Canada: Democratic Innovations in Strategic Spaces.  Washington, DC: Transnational Institute.  Montrealais.  (2005).  “File:Montreal-boroughs-post-demerger.png.” Wikipedia Commons.  Retrieved from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Montreal- boroughs-post-demerger.png.  Motsi, G. (2009).  Evaluating Citizen Engagement in Policy Making: A paper presented at the Canadian Evaluation Society Conference June 2, 2009, Ottawa.  Institute on Governance.    
 50 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.  (2001).  Engaging Citizens in Policy-making: Information, Consultation and Public Participation. PUMA Policy Brief No. 10.  O’Sullivan, R. G.  (2004).  Practicing Evaluation: A Collaborative Approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.  Projet Montréal.  (2010a).  “Projet Montréal: About Us.”  Retrieved from http://www.projetmontreal.org/leparti/  Projet Montréal.  (2010b).  “Democracy and Governance.”  Retrieved from http://www.projetmontreal.org/theme/democratie/  Projet Montréal.  (2009).  “Plate-forme Projet Montréal – Plateau-Mont-Royal: Une pluie d’interventions à l’échelle humaine – maintenant.” Retrieved from http://en.projetmontreal.org/files/documents/2009_09_14_projetmontreal_docume nt_1252902112_fr.pdf  Projet Montréal.  (2007).  “Projet Montréal: Statuts et Règlements.”  Retrieved from http://www.projetmontreal.org/files/leparti/SR_2007_final.pdf  Rabouin, L.  (2009).  Démocratiser la ville: Le budget participatif : De Porto Alegre à Montréal. Montreal: Lux Éditeur.  Rabouin, L.  (2005).  Vers un Budget Participatif sur le Plateau: Rapport présenté à l’arrondissement du Plateau-Mont-Royal. Montreal.  Saindon, Y.  (2009).  Rapport officiel du recensement des votes: Scrutin du 1er novembre 2009.  Ville de Montréal.  Retrieved from http://election- montreal.qc.ca/userfiles/file/fr/Actualites-documentation/20091103-Resultats- Sommaires.pdf  United Nations Development Program.  (2000). Urban Governance: A Sourcebook on Indicators. Kuala Lumpur: UNDP.  Retrieved from http://www.gdrc.org/u- gov/indicators/contents.html.  United Nations Economic and Social Council.  (2007). Participatory Governance and Citizens’ Engagement in Policy Development, Service Delivery and Budgeting. New York: Committee of Experts on Public Administration. Ville de Montréal.  (2010).  “Official City Portal: Ville de Montréal: Political Life.” Retrieved from http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=5977,42239616&_dad=portal&_sche ma=PORTAL.  Ville de Montréal.  (no date).  The Challenge of Participation: Montreal’s Public Consultation and Participation Policy. Montreal. 
 51 APPENDICES  
Appendix 1: Projet Montréal’s Electoral Platform, Plateau-Mont-Royal, 2009 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 1.1 Planter des arbres sur les rues qui n'en n'ont pas Rivard (section nord); St-Hubert (section mediane), De Gaspé, Casgrain et St-Dominique (St-Viateur Est), Hôtel-de-Ville, De Bullion, Coloniale, St-André, St-Dominique, Rachel, Avenue des Pins. 1.2 Développer 15 ruelles vertes et/ou ruelles champêtres pendant le premier mandat Faciliter le processus de transformation d'une ruelle : modification des règles de consensus pour la piétonnisation d'une ruelle ou pour la limitation de la circulation de part en part ; pouvoirs d'encadrement et de promotion accrus aux éco- quartiers ; prêts d'équipements lourds gérés par les éco-quartiers, mandatés par l'arrondissement. Les ruelles seront choisies en fonction des demandes des citoyens. Favoriser la formation de comités de citoyens autour de la réalisation de ces actions et de l'entretien. Mettre en place un moratoire de 2 ans sur la construction de stationnements dans les ruelles. 1.3 Aménager 25 entrées de ruelles vertes pendant le premier mandat (à l'instar de la ruelle Roy/Mentana) L'entrée de la ruelle est rétrécie et pavée sur 10 mètres. Des plantations sont faites de part et d'autre de cette section de 10 mètres. Les entrées de ruelles seront choisies en fonction des demandes des citoyens. 1.4 Créer 2 nouveaux espaces verts Le parc Berri : parc linéaire créé par la réduction du nombre et de la largeur des voies des rues Berri (entre Roy et Cherrier) et Cherrier (entre Berri et Saint-Denis) et par la fermeture de la circulation sur la rue Roy en direction Est entre Saint-Denis et Saint-Hubert. L'espace pourra entre autres accueillir un marché du dimanche. (voir section activités commerciales). Le champ du Mile-end : terrain vague situé entre la rue Saint-Viateur au Sud et la voie ferrée au Nord, et entre les rues Henri-Julien à l'Est et de Gaspé à l'Ouest. La Ville centre a acquis ce terrain et songe à l'utiliser en partie pour une cour de voirie et surtout (dernières informations) en parc. Traiter ce projet en mode de démocratie participative - dès l'étape du design. Reconnaître le potentiel de lien vert avec les abords de la voie ferrée (corridor écologique), le quartier Bellechasse et toute autre connexion avec le quartier. 1.5 Verdir les murs aveugles Subventionner (30% des coûts) l'excavation à la base des murs aveugles en vue de la plantation de vigne (ex: rue Groll, stationnement de la Fraternité des policiers, École Nationale de théâtre - de très nombreux autres exemples). 1.6 Planter des vivaces dans les fosses d'arbres Distribution de vivaces aux citoyens pour les fosses d'arbres sur le trottoir (remplace la distribution annuelle de fleurs). Mobilisation annuelle pour leur entretien. 1.7 Retirer des sections de béton sur les trottoirs dont la largeur le permet - à la demande des citoyens et à la condition de leur implication dans la maintenance de ces espaces. 1- Verdir Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 1 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 1.8 Remembrement et restauration des parcs Parc Lafontaine  - Phase 1 Agrandir le parc de plusieurs hectares par la fermeture de rues ayant empiété sur le parc avec les années Fermer la rue Émile-Duployé à la circulation sauf au passage des autobus Éliminer la bretelle de passage Cherrier à travers le parc Éliminer en partie ou en totalité les stationnements au Sud du parc Utiliser ces espaces de façon temporaire - avant la mise en œuvre d'un réaménagement majeur (jeux d'échecs géant, kiosque de musique, terrain de basket-ball, skatepark, lounge extérieure, ping-pong extérieur, etc.) Parc Lafontaine  - Phase 2 Requalifier les espaces en retirant les zones inutilement bétonnées Naturaliser les berges de l'étang Naturaliser la terrasse du chalet ; concevoir à la place un lieu de repos et de silence - déplacer le bureau de maintenance municipale et interdire la circulation de véhicules municipaux sur cet espace. Verdir les murs aveugles du chalet Retirer l'asphalte et aménager des plantations autour du centre culturel Déplacer la piste cyclable sur l'avenue du Parc-Lafontaine (en créant une piste de même qualité en termes de confort et de verdure) Utiliser la piste cyclable pour apaiser la rue Lafontaine en bordure du parc. Rendre payant le stationnement dans le parc Parc Lafontaine  - Phase 3 Restauration complète ; réaménager les étangs ; ajouter des jardins thématiques en cohérence avec l'histoire du parc. Parc du Mont-Royal Jouer pleinement notre rôle à la table de concertation. Exiger en particulier la mise en œuvre complète du Plan de protection et de mise en valeur (élimination du transit Camilien-Houde et réalisation d'un chemin de parc ; réalisation du chemin de ceinture ; renaturalisation des abords de la Maison Smith - plantations, récupération des espaces de stationnement de l'hôpital Royal Victoria après la vente à l'Université Mc Gill) Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 2 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant Parc Laurier Élimination de la zone de stationnement Remplacement par la permission de stationner sur la rue Laurier en bordure du parc en tout temps (cette autorisation aura en même temps un effet apaisant sur la circulation de cette rue – notamment aux abords de la rue Christophe-Colomb). Élimination / débétonisation du chemin de traverse d'Est en Ouest Aménagement des espaces avant et arrière du pavillon (terrasse, jardin, fontaine, etc.) En attendant les fonds disponibles, aménagement rudimentaire (table de pique-nique, agriculture urbaine sur terrasse arrière). Parc Lahaie Fermer la rue St-Dominique à la circulation dans le parc Lahaie. Remplacer par une allée permettant le passage des voitures de fonction lors de célébration religieuses (enterrements, mariages). Arboretum St-Dominique (au bout de la patinoire) Transformer en parc le stationnement de l'aréna. Le stationnement sur rue ne pose aucun problème dans cette zone. 1.8 Développer l'agriculture urbaine Création de jardins communautaires en bac sur les terrains récupérés (stationnement Lafontaine sud, espaces bétonnés Laurier). Projet pilote d'utilisation des plantes comestibles à des fins d'embellissement / verdissement / alimentation. 1.9 Amorcer la création d'un réseau vert Réseau de voies vertes permettant de faire un lien entre les espaces verts. Les rues sont apaisées et verdies au point où la sensation de calme et de repos ressentie s'apparente à celle d'un parc (concept de parc habité). Peut être composé de sections diverses (rues piétonnes, parcs, ruelles vertes, rues à très faible débit (10 à 15 voitures à l'heure maximum) et très faible vitesse (15 km/h). Lien entre le Parc Lafontaine, le nouveau parc Berri et le Carré Saint Louis par le verdissement et l'apaisement maximal de la rue Roy Est. Lien entre le Parc Lafontaine et Parc Baldwin par le verdissement et l'apaisement maximal de la rue Gauthier Lien entre le Parc Lafontaine et le Parc Jeanne-Mance par le verdissement maximal et l'apaisement des rues Roy, De Chateaubriand et Marie-Anne (à l'Ouest de Saint-Denis). Lien entre le Parc Laurier et le Champ du Mile End par le verdissement de la rue Boucher Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 3 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 2.1 Empêcher le transit sur les rues résidentielles et diminuer la vitesse de circulation Empêcher la circulation de transit en créant des sens uniques en tête-bêche sur  les rues résidentielles utilisées comme voies de contournement par les automobilistes lors des épisodes de congestion sur les artères : rues Rivard, Esplanade, De Lanaudière, Dorion, Berri, Marquette, Cartier, etc. Revoir la configuration des rues (y compris leur rétrécissement, leur tracé et l'installation de dos d'ânes) pour garantir une vitesse de circulation de 30 km/h sur les rues résidentielles. S'applique en priorité aux rues dont la reconstruction est prévue (Saint-André). Pour les rues trop larges (Esplanade, Waverly, Jeanne-Mance, St-Dominique, Casgrain, de Gaspé, Hutchison, Rivard au Nord de Laurier, etc.), mettre en oeuvre et faire respecter des moyens de réduction de la largeur. Construire des « entrées de rue » au croisement des collectrices et des artères particulièrement problématiques. L'entrée de rue est une intersection sécurisée avec surélévation de la chaussée, trottoir en saillies et rétrécissement marqué de la largeur de la rue (particulièrement sur Villeneuve et Fairmount). Réintroduire le droit de tourner à gauche sur les collectrices si l'interdiction de tourner génère de la circulation sur une rue résidentielle (Mont-Royal et Saint-Denis : impact Drolet ; Mont-Royal et Papineau : impact Cartier, etc.) 2.2 Empêcher le transit sur les collectrices Bris des parcours de transit par la modification des sens uniques et/ou l'installation de chicanes (rues Marie-Anne, Gilford, Villeneuve) Installation de stops manquants (revoir la réglementation qui empêche l'installation de stop à moins de 5 mètres d'une intersection munie d'un feu de circulation (en particulier sur Gilford, Marie-Anne, Villeneuve). Requalifier la rue Gauthier en rue verte à 15 km/h - avec interdiction de tourner à gauche à partir de De Lorimier. Réduire agressivement la vitesse sur les rues problématiques (Masson, Saint-Grégoire) par l'installation de dos d'ânes allongés, rétrécissement en saillie et texturisation du pavage. Réduire les collectrices à une voie de circulation dans la même direction (donc éliminer la deuxième voie le cas échéant) : De La Roche, Brébeuf (le long du parc Laurier), Villeneuve, Fairmount, Milton. Permettre le stationnement en bordure de rue des deux côtés en tout temps (rue Laurier devant le parc)  2 Apaiser et réduire circulation Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 4 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 2.3 Réduire le volume de circulation et la vitesse sur les artères Diminuer la capacité des artères au prorata de la croissance des tansports actifs et collectifs - mesure rétroactive sur 5 ans. La diminution de la capacité peut prendre différentes formes : rétrécissement de la largeur des voies, étranglement aux points de passage sécurisés, installation d'une voie réservée de TC en site propre, autorisation de stationnement en tout temps pour les résidents, installation d'une piste cyclable. 2.4 Réduire l'offre de stationnement gratuit pour les non-résidents / non-consommateurs Réduire l'offre de stationnement gratuit pour des durées illimitées aux non-résidents (stationnement non tarifé de 2 heures ou paiement d'une vignette de travailleur non-résident) Taxer les stationnements hors-rues de plus de 10 voitures. 2.5 Développer et sécuriser le réseau cyclable Ouvrir une nouvelle piste de transport actif et écologique Nord/Sud (de Laval au centre-ville). Piste qui pourra aussi accueillir les vélos ou tricycles électriques. Aménager une bande cyclable à contresens de la circulation sur les rues Marie-Anne, Laurier, Boucher, etc. Aménager les pistes cyclables suivantes en site propre : De La Roche entre Laurier et Rachel (unidirectionnelle) Fullum sur toute sa longueur Aménager, en site propre, une piste cyclable sur l'Avenue des Pins entre Saint-Denis et Av. du Parc. Rendre la piste Brébeuf unidirectionnelle sur toute la largeur (complétée par l'ajout d'une piste unidirectionnelle sur De La Roche). Revoir la sécurité de la piste Rachel - notamment en diminuant le nombre de rues qui y débouchent - dans le cadre de la révision des sens uniques visant à réduire le volume de circulation sur les rues résidentielles. Ouvrir les discussions avec le CP pour le croisement de la voie ferrée par la piste cyclable Nord-Sud actuelle vis-à-vis de la rue Boyer (passage à niveau). Multiplier les stationnements de vélos sur rue (sur les rues commerciales et résidentielles). Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 5 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 2.6 Sécuriser les intersections Poursuivre agressivement la mise en œuvre de l'interdiction de stationnement aux abords des intersections Traverses de piétons sécurisées sur les grandes artères (Saint-Denis, Papineau, Saint-Urbain, Rachel aux abords du Parc, Sherbrooke). 2.7 Collaborer avec la STM pour l'installation de voies réservées de transport en commun en site propre Saint-Denis, Saint Joseph, St-Urbain, Papineau, Revoir la configuration des rues (y compris leur rétrécissement, leur tracé et l'installation de dos d'ânes) pour garantir une vitesse de circulation de 30 km/h sur les rues résidentielles. S'applique en priorité aux rues dont la reconstruction est prévue (Saint-André). Pour les rues trop larges (Esplanade, Waverly, Jeanne-Mance, St-Dominique, Casgrain, de Gaspé, Hutchison, Rivard au Nord de Laurier, etc.), mettre en oeuvre et faire respecter des moyens de réduction de la largeur. Construire des « entrées de rue » au croisement des collectrices et des artères particulièrement problématiques. L'entrée de rue est une intersection sécurisée avec surélévation de la chaussée, trottoir en saillies et rétrécissement marqué de la largeur de la rue (particulièrement sur Villeneuve et Fairmount). Réintroduire le droit de tourner à gauche sur les collectrices si l'interdiction de tourner génère de la circulation sur une rue résidentielle (Mont-Royal et Saint-Denis : impact Drolet ; Mont-Royal et Papineau : impact Cartier, etc.) 2.2 Empêcher le transit sur les collectrices Bris des parcours de transit par la modification des sens uniques et/ou l'installation de chicanes (rues Marie-Anne, Gilford, Villeneuve) Installation de stops manquants (revoir la réglementation qui empêche l'installation de stop à moins de 5 mètres d'une intersection munie d'un feu de circulation (en particulier sur Gilford, Marie-Anne, Villeneuve). Requalifier la rue Gauthier en rue verte à 15 km/h - avec interdiction de tourner à gauche à partir de De Lorimier. Réduire agressivement la vitesse sur les rues problématiques (Masson, Saint-Grégoire) par l'installation de dos d'ânes allongés, rétrécissement en saillie et texturisation du pavage. Réduire les collectrices à une voie de circulation dans la même direction (donc éliminer la deuxième voie le cas échéant) : De La Roche, Brébeuf (le long du parc Laurier), Villeneuve, Fairmount, Milton. Permettre le stationnement en bordure de rue des deux côtés en tout temps (rue Laurier devant le parc) Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 6 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 2.3 Réduire le volume de circulation et la vitesse sur les artères Diminuer la capacité des artères au prorata de la croissance des tansports actifs et collectifs - mesure rétroactive sur 5 ans. La diminution de la capacité peut prendre différentes formes : rétrécissement de la largeur des voies, étranglement aux points de passage sécurisés, installation d'une voie réservée de TC en site propre, autorisation de stationnement en tout temps pour les résidents, installation d'une piste cyclable. 2.4 Réduire l'offre de stationnement gratuit pour les non-résidents / non-consommateurs Réduire l'offre de stationnement gratuit pour des durées illimitées aux non-résidents (stationnement non tarifé de 2 heures ou paiement d'une vignette de travailleur non-résident) Taxer les stationnements hors-rues de plus de 10 voitures. 2.5 Développer et sécuriser le réseau cyclable Ouvrir une nouvelle piste de transport actif et écologique Nord/Sud (de Laval au centre-ville). Piste qui pourra aussi accueillir les vélos ou tricycles électriques. Aménager une bande cyclable à contresens de la circulation sur les rues Marie-Anne, Laurier, Boucher, etc. Aménager les pistes cyclables suivantes en site propre : De La Roche entre Laurier et Rachel (unidirectionnelle) Fullum sur toute sa longueur Aménager, en site propre, une piste cyclable sur l'Avenue des Pins entre Saint-Denis et Av. du Parc. Rendre la piste Brébeuf unidirectionnelle sur toute la largeur (complétée par l'ajout d'une piste unidirectionnelle sur De La Roche). Revoir la sécurité de la piste Rachel - notamment en diminuant le nombre de rues qui y débouchent - dans le cadre de la révision des sens uniques visant à réduire le volume de circulation sur les rues résidentielles. Ouvrir les discussions avec le CP pour le croisement de la voie ferrée par la piste cyclable Nord-Sud actuelle vis-à-vis de la rue Boyer (passage à niveau). Multiplier les stationnements de vélos sur rue (sur les rues commerciales et résidentielles). 2.6 Sécuriser les intersections Poursuivre agressivement la mise en œuvre de l'interdiction de stationnement aux abords des intersections Traverses de piétons sécurisées sur les grandes artères (Saint-Denis, Papineau, Saint-Urbain, Rachel aux abords du Parc, Sherbrooke). 2.7 Collaborer avec la STM pour l'installation de voies réservées de transport en commun en site propre Saint-Denis, Saint Joseph, St-Urbain, Papineau, Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 7 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 3.1 Adopter immédiatement les dispositions les plus progressistes du règlement sur le bruit de l'arrondissement d'Outremont. Interdiction de travaux entre 19h00 et 7h30 ainsi que le dimanche et les jours fériés. Interdiction de l'usage d'engins à moteur pour le jardinage du 1er juin au 30 septembre Interdiction de livraison entre 19h et 8 h partout sur le territoire Interdiction de tout dispositif avertisseur de véhicules sauf en cas de danger 3.2 Faire respecter la limitation de la vitesse de circulation à 40km/h - surtout sur les artères Utiliser tous les moyens - y compris les radars photos - pour faire respecter la limitation de vitesse de moins de 40 km/h sur les artères - en particulier sur les rues De Lorimier et Papineau. Avec une insistance particulière la nuit. 3.3 Traiter au cas par cas les rues les plus problématiques. Adopter au besoin des règlements et des mesures particulières. Interdire la circulation de nuit sur les collectrices les plus affectées/les moins adaptées à la circulation intensive de jour par l'installation de bollards ou de clôtures rétractables pour ne laisser le passage qu'à la population locale : rues Saint-Hubert et Resther entre Mont-Royal et Laurier, Saint-Dominique, ainsi que toutes les rues jouxtant des artères (Dorion, Rivard, Drolet). Projet pilote démarrant par les fins de semaines d'été. 3.4 Limiter la circulation des poids lourds Interdire la circulation de poids lourds à des fins de livraison par une approche réglementaire et par un aménagement des rues rendant leur passage impossible. Interdire la circulation des poids lourds la nuit sur l'ensemble du territoire (22h00 à 7h00) Lancer un projet pilote d'utilisation de bennes à ordures de taille réduite sur certaines rues particulièrement affectées par le bruit de ramasssage des ordures. Faire respecter l'interdiction pour les camions de circuler dans les ruelles la nuit (22h00 à 7h00) - avec des moyens physiques si nécessaires (clôtures) Interdire la cueillette des ordures de 21h00 à 7h00 Interdire formellement l'usage du frein moteur (frein « jacob ») en ville 3- Apaiser en réduisant le Bruit Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 8 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 3.5 Revoir la règlementation sur le tapage nocturne Introduire la notion de cumul des impacts générés par un établissement ou un particulier (plusieurs impacts mineurs étant considérés illégaux s'ils se cumulent - même si pris individuellement ces impacts sont tolérables). Introduire la notion de zone silence 10h00 pour les rues les plus affectées par le bruit (période de 10 heures consécutives de nuit pendant laquelle aucun travail municipal - y compris le déneigement – n'est permis sur certaines rues). 3.6 Rendre rétroactive la règlementation sur les système de ventilation/refroidissement des restaurants 3.7 Diminuer les nuisances liées à l'usage des Klaxons/sirènes Modifier la pratique d'avis de déneigement/remorquage par sirène Interdire l'usage du klaxon pour les camions de déneigement la nuit Étudier la possibilité de limitation de l'usage du signal sonore de recul pour les camions de déneigement la nuit Adopter un programme de sensibilisation sur l'usage des systèmes d'alarme de voiture et sur l'avertissement sonore du verrouillage/déverrouillage des portes. Envisager la possibilité d'offrir le débranchement (gratuit/subventionné) de ces systèmes. Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 9 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 4.1 Créer de nouvelles places publiques et lieux de rencontre Repenser l'avenue du Mont-Royal : lancer une étude sur la piétonnisation partielle ou complète de la rue. Formuler, dans le cadre de cette étude, un plan de réaménagement de la place du Métro Mont-Royal. Formuler, dans le cadre de cette étude, une réflexion sur la prolifération des commerces de sociabilité au détriment des commerces de première nécessité. Dans l'attente des résultats de cette étude, aménager deux zones de rencontre (une entre Papineau et De Lorimier, et une entre Saint-Denis et St-Hubert). Créer 2 nouvelles places publiques en fermant la collectrice à une extrémité : Gilford au coin de Saint-Denis, Milton/Clark Fermer la rue Roy à la circulation entre St-Hubert et le Parc Lafontaine et agrandir la place Roy en conséquence. Utiliser, sur les rues résidentielles apaisées, les espaces libérés pour verdir et embellir progressivement la rue notamment par l'installation de mini places publiques au coin des rues. Implantation par étape (première étape peinture, deuxième étape fosses de plantation, troisième étape plantations et mobilier). Impliquer les citoyens non seulement dans la configuration, mais aussi dans la réalisation (appropriation des plantations par exemple). Commencer par trois projets pilotes (Esplanade entre Villeneuve et Mont-Royal ; Bordeaux entre Rachel et Mont-Royal ; St-André entre Sherbrooke et Marie-Anne). Élimination du double-sens sur Laurier entre Saint-Denis et Saint-Laurent, élargissement et végétalisation des trottoirs. Appliquer le règlement de San Francisco sur l'utilisation commerciale du trottoir : rendre celle-ci conditionnelle au verdissement de 25% de l'espace public utilisé à des fins commerciales (aux frais du commerçant). Préserver partout sur le territoire et en tout temps des trottoirs d'une largeur minimale de 1,8 mètres. Dans l'hypothèse où le commerçant désire installer une terrasse qui ne respecterait pas cette largeur minimum, la possibilité d'installer cette terrasse sur rue sera étudiée. Faire un appel à propositions de citoyens pour tester l'intérêt de la création de zones de rencontre sur les rues Roy et Fairmount. Lancer une consultation immédiate sur un projet d'embellissement de la rue Laurier entre Brébeuf et Papineau. 4.2 Réintroduire les fontaines En privilégiant des fontaines fonctionnelles et rudimentaires. En particulier sur les espaces de rencontre et les rues/ruelles vertes où les voisins sont impliqués dans la maintenance des plantations. Projet pilote sera amorcé en remplaçant certains abreuvoirs dans les parcs 4- Valoriser la vie de quartier Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 10 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 4.3 Marchés publics Étudier l’implantation d’un marché public majeur sur rue soit dans le secteur St-Viateur Est, soit sur St-Dominique au Sud de Prince-Arthur. Étudier l’installation d’un marché public du dimanche sur la rue Cherrier au coin de Berri. Permettre l’installation des fermiers bio (certifiés) sur les coins de rues désignés de l’arrondissement et/ou en terrasse sur trottoir sans frais seulement pendant la période des récoltes. Étudier l’installation d’un marché de fin de semaine spécialisé dans la brocante, les œuvres d’art, les antiquités spécialisées . Étudier l’implantation d’un espace de foire permanent (simple local vide largement ouvert sur la rue) pour les producteurs locaux et régionaux sur la rue Mont-Royal. 4.4 Sortir la culture dans la rue En été, installer la section jeunesse de la bibliothèque sous la tente, dans un parc. Projet pilote : construire une «Shed de la musique» dans le secteur St-Viateur Est : salle mise à la disposition de groupes de musique émergents à prix coûtant pour de courtes périodes Projet pilote: construire un kiosque rudimentaire dans le Parc Lafontaine et le mettre à la disposition des chœurs et orchestres Projet pilote : construire un kiosque rudimentaire permettant la pratique de la danse (cours ou activités populaires - aînés.) Maximiser l'utilisation des salles publiques (notamment celle du Parc Lafontaine) 4.5 Utilisation de l'espace public pour la pratique du sport Fermeture de la rue Camilien-Houde un soir de semaine et le dimanche matin pour la pratique du vélo de route Fermeture d'un circuit de rues le dimanche matin permettant de lier les parcs Lafontaine et Laurier pour la pratique du patin à roues alignées. Règles assouplies de fermeture des rues pour la pratique du hockey bottine en fin de semaine Dédier un espace parc/jardin du silence pour la pratique du Yoga et autres techniques de concentration (Champ du Mile End ou parc privé de l'Hôtel-Dieu). Installer un skatepark en collaboration avec les utilisateurs. Privilégier une implantation progressive ; laissée à la gouverne des adeptes dans un premier temps. Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 11 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 5.1 Propreté La radicalisation importante des mesures de nettoyage des espaces publics qui caractérise les mesures proposées s'inspire de la théorie du carreau cassé : les premiers signes de malpropreté sont les plus graves parce que la saleté est un phénomène exponentiel et épidémique. Mise sur pied d'une escouade d'intervention rapide pour le règlement - même mineur - des cas de malpropreté et d'insalubrité. Les coûts (que nous estimons à + ou - 20$ par porte/par an) seront clairement identifiés sur le compte de taxe des citoyens pour que chacun comprennent le coût collectif de notre laisser aller. Changer le statut des ruelles visibles à partir des artères commerciales. Équipements, aménagement, fréquence de nettoyage et règlements doivent être revus pour les premiers 50 mètres de la ruelle comptés à partir de l'intersection de la rue (ruelles débouchant sur St-Denis/Mont-Royal, Bernard/Hutchison, Saint-Laurent/Prince-Arthur, etc.). Multiplier le nombre de poubelles publiques, surtout à l'abord des stations de métro et des parcs. Tenir compte de l'organisation de fêtes dans la programmation de la collecte des poubelles publiques Appliquer une approche qualité systématique de la collecte des ordures avec indicateurs mesurés. Appliquer systématiquement la réglementation sur les odeurs (bennes à ordure qui fuient) Responsabiliser les commerces, les grands immeubles à logements et les entreprises pour le trottoir et la ruelle situés devant et derrière leur immeuble. Comme pour le bruit, introduire une notion d'impacts cumulés pour les commerces et citoyens dont le cumul d'incivilités mineures se traduit par des impacts récurrents ou majeurs pour leurs voisins. Interdire la distribution d'échantillons promotionnels dans la rue. Augmentation sensible du nombre d’inspecteurs 5.2 Déneigement Brigade de trottoirs : déneigement et déglaçage rapide, systématique et prioritaire des trottoirs. Interdire le dépôt de neige sur le domaine public par des firmes privées de déneigement des ruelles Viser une diminution d'au moins 10% du volume de neige chargée - entre autres par l'identification de zones où il est possible de laisser la neige au sol. Évaluer la possibilité de tirer partie des épisodes de pluie et de réchauffement (de plus en plus nombreux) dans les décisions de déneigement. Communiquer à la population ces efforts de réduction des coûts de déneigement. Utilisation des abrasifs 5.3 Gestion des vignettes 5- Gérer différemment Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 12 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant Gérer la zone maximale de stationnement pour vignettes en fonction du nombre de requérants et non de la limite de 50% de l'espace disponible sur rue, comme actuellement. Voir la proposition sur la vignette de travailleur non-résident dans la section Diminution du volume de transit. 5.4 Faciliter les relations avec l'administration Visites à domicile pour faciliter l'émission d'un permis de rénovation Prise en charge et suivi des demandes exigeant le traitement d'un dossier par d'autres bureaux et administrations de la ville (notamment les services de la Ville centre). Refonte susbtancielle des valeurs et moyens de la diffusion de l'information aux résidents lors d'une demande ou d'une plainte. 5.5 Démocratie participative, transparence des décisions et des débats Maintien/amélioration du budget participatif : une commission d'étude du budget sera composée de tous les élus et des représentants de la société civile. La commission fera un suivi public des priorités au début et en cours d'année. Viser 1% de la population en participation à la démarche soit 1000 personnes. Les finances désastreuses de notre arrondissement pourraient requérir une rationalisation de certains services. Le processus de rationalisation incluera une étape de consultation. Tous les projets d'aménagement (ruelles vertes, saillies, zones de rencontre) seront soumis aux résidents - dès l'étape de la conception. Dans l'hypothèse où certains conseillers n'appartiendraient pas à l'équipe gagnante au niveau de la mairie d'arrondissement, les conseillers minoritaires seront considérés membres de l'équipe de plein droit. Pas de double standard d'information et de participation. Refonte du fonctionnement du Conseil d'arrondissement. Il sera entre autres itinérant et virtuel. Il permettra la réception de questions en ligne ou par téléphone. Le conseil d'arrondisement ne doit plus être l aseule porte d'entrée et de communication avec les élus. Le conseiller peut communiquer avec un ensemble de groupes et d'associations entre les conseils pour les mettre au courant de l'évolution des dossiers; il peut aussi tenir des rencontres. Café mensuel avec les élus : présence statutaire de vos conseillers municipaux dans un café du quartier. Compte tenu du manque de ressources de l'arrondissement, la plupart des projets se fera par étapes - la première étant souvent un simple marquage au sol. Cette manière de faire permettra de recueillir les avis des citoyens concernés en vue de la réalisation de l'étape finale - la construction. 6 - Développer différemment Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 13 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 6.1 Logement social Exiger, après l'élection mais avant la passation des pouvoirs, l'annulation du contrat garantissant une option d'achat de 54 mois à la firme Elmag pour le terrain de la cour de voirie St-Grégoire. Consacrer 100% de ce terrain au logement social et à des coopératives d'habitation. Consacrer 100% du terrain du garage de la STM à du logement social et à des coopératives d'habitation. Exiger des organismes gouvernementaux provinciaux la cession/vente de terrains actuellement consacrés à du stationnement en vue de la construction de logements sociaux et de coopératives d'habitation (Centre Lucie-Bruno, École des métiers automobiles, CSSS Laurier, École Laurier/St-Hubert, ENAP, etc.). Reporter le projet de maison de la culture à une date ultérieure au comblement de 50% des besoins de logements sociaux et des coopératives d'habitation sur le territoire de l'arrondissement. Mettre en place une réglementation municipale d’inclusion qui exige des promoteurs privés qu'ils incluent au moins 25 % de logements sociaux et abordables à leurs projets. Les promoteurs préférant se soustraire à cette obligation verseront au FLSA de la Ville de Montréal une somme de 25 000 $ par logement social ou abordable manquant. 6.2 Logements pour les familles Permettre la construction d'un étage supplémentaire sur des bâtiments existants pour la construction de  grands logements familiaux si et seulement si les conditions d'ensoleillement et de respect du patrimoine sont strictement respectées. Programme limité aux familles propriétaires de deux enfants et plus. Développer un plan d'ensemble et procéder à l'achat de bâtiments et de terrains en vue du re-développement, à des fins de construction de logements pour les familles sur certains lots de la zone mixte de l'Est du Plateau. Le développement se fera uniquement par la ville ou par une corporation sans but lucratif mandatée par la ville. Le développement se fera uniquement si les conditions économiques permettent le développement de logements familiaux abordables. Aucun autre type de développement résidentiel ne sera permis. Aucun changement de zonage au profit de promoteurs privés ne sera accordé. 6.3 Développement du secteur St-Viateur Est En vue de protéger les lieux de création (arts, musique, artisanat ou autres) sis dans les anciennes usines des rues de Gaspé et Casgrain aucun projet de requalification/reconversion exigeant des subventions directes aux propriétaires ne sera consenti sur ce site. Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 14 Plate-forme Projet Montréal - Plateau Mont-Royal Une pluie d'interventions à échelle humaine  - maintenant 6.3 Modèle d'aménagement du territoire Les investissement en aménagement du territoire sont ralentis/bloqués par des coûts et des délais d'études inacceptables (9k$ pour un dos d'âne). À l'instar de New-York, nous allons procéder avec un minimum d'études préalables - en proposant des installations temporaires qui agiront comme des projets pilotes. C'est sur la base de ces projets que les décisions seront prises ensuite. 6.4 Budget Sur la base des dernières informations que nous avons reçues, nous estimons le manque à gagner de l'arrondissement à 2 ou 3 M$ par année. La plupart des propositions que nous faisons peuvent être inscrites au budget d'exploitation. Nous estimons qu'un plan vigoureux de changement nécessiterait des dépenses de plusieurs millions(environ 5 millions par an) - ce qui n'est pas réaliste dans le contexte budgétaire du Plateau. Nous limiterons les dépenses pour ce plan à 2 ou 3 millions par an. Les revenus nécessaires seront obtenus par une rationalisation des dépenses et par des nouveaux revenus de taxation des stationnements et vignettes de non résidents/non consommateurs. 6.5 Innovations sociales (recherches et projets pilotes) Projet pilote : étudier la possibilité de consacrer un lieu de culte (église ou sous-sol) à des commerces socialement utiles mais déficitaires (petite entreprises de diffusion culturelle ; commerce alimentaire abordable ; commerce de produits écologiques). Étude d'opportunité : mandater une corporation sans but lucratif à construire et exploiter une résidence étudiante (la Maison des régions) sur le territoire de l'arrondissement. Étude : évaluer la possibilité de confier à des particuliers ou à des coopératives l'aménagement ou la construction d'un logement social dans leur propriété. Projet pilote : suivre, soutenir et participer au programme canadien d'intégration des sans abris Recherche : évaluer les coûts et impacts en termes de transports liés à la pénurie de places en garderie dans le quartier. Recherche : étudier la possibilité d'un programme de jumelage assisté entre des étudiants et des propriétaires occupants ou des locataires Recherche : identifier les coûts de transports liés à la pénurie de logements proches des lieux de travail pour les principaux employeurs du Plateau. Identifier, à travers le monde, les programmes de subvention au logement offerts par les entreprises. Les interventions exclusives à la ville centre ne sont pas énumérées Vert: aucune contrainte Jaune:  collaboration ville centre Orange:  crédits extraordinaires 15 
Appendix 2: List of people interviewed    Focus Groups: Richard Boutin, Comité aviseur member Carol Clément, Comité aviseur member Guillaume Cloutier, Political attaché, Projet Montréal Christine Gosselin, Political attaché, Projet Montréal Catherine Passerieux, Comité aviseur member Daniel Sanger, Political attaché, Projet Montréal Mathieu Vick, Comité aviseur member   Semi-Structured Interviews: Isabelle Cadrin, Borough Director, Plateau-Mont-Royal André Cardinal, Commission on Democracy, Projet Montréal Pierre Dodin, President, Comité aviseur on Noise Luc Ferrandez, Borough Mayor, Plateau-Mont-Royal Christine Gosselin, Political attaché, Projet Montréal Luc Rabouin, Executive Director, Montreal Urban Ecology Centre Richard Ryan, Borough Councilor, Mile-End District  
Appendix 3: Survey Questionnaire   Page 1 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal Nous vous remercions d’avoir accepté de participer à ce sondage, qui prendra 10 à 20 minutes de votre temps. Vos réponses contribueront au développement d'un cadre pour le suivi des Comités aviseurs. Vous n’êtes toutefois pas tenus de répondre à toutes les questions.  Ce sondage comporte cinq séries de questions. La plupart des questions suscitent des réponses courtes, d’autres des réponses élaborées. N’hésitez pas à dire ce que vous pensez.  Ce sondage fait partie d’un projet de recherche sur les Comités aviseurs de l'arrondissement du Plateau Mont-Royal. Nous vous encourageons à contribuer à la poursuite de cette étude. Vos réponses demeureront anonymes. Si vous êtes intéressés à y collaborer davantage en participant à une entrevue, vous pourrez l'indiquer ci-dessous.  N’hésitez pas à poser des questions ou à formuler des commentaires en tout temps. Pour toute question ou information supplémentaire, veuillez communiquer avec Julien Landry: Courriel: julienmlandry@yahoo.ca 1. Je suis membre du (ou des) Comité(s) aviseur(s) suivant(s)*: 2. Je participe au(x) Comité(s) aviseur(s) à titre de:  1. Implication des membres Aménagement  gfedc Appaisement de la circulation  gfedc Bruit  gfedc Champs des possibles  gfedc Ruelles commerciales (cohabitation résidents/commerçants)  gfedc Stationnement  gfedc Verdissement  gfedc *Veuillez répondre aux questions par rapport au Comité auquel vous participez directement. Si vous êtes membre de plusieurs Comités aviseurs, veuillez indiquer au cours du sondage, à quel Comité se réfère la ou les réponses Résident(e)  nmlkj Professionnel(le) ou expert(e)  nmlkj Représentant(e) d'organisme ou groupe communautaire  nmlkj Fonctionnaire ou Employé(e) de l'arrondissement  nmlkj Élu(e) du Plateau Mont-Royal  nmlkj Autre (veuillez préciser) Page 2 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal 3. Le moyen par lequel j’ai été recruté(e) fut: 4. Ce qui me motivait à me joindre à un Comité aviseur était:  5. Si c'est différent de la réponse à la Question 4, ce qui me motive à être membre d'un Comité aviseur aujourd'hui est:  5 6 5 6  En répondant à un appel public (Conseil d'arrondissement)  nmlkj En remplissant une feuille d’inscription  nmlkj Par invitation dans votre réseau (ex: Facebook)  nmlkj Par invitation personnelle  nmlkj Autre (veuillez préciser) Page 3 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal Ces questions cherchent à clarifier la perspective des membres par rapport au fonctionnement et aux rôles qu'ont les Comités aviseurs. 1. Veuillez indiquer si vous êtes d'accord ou en désaccord avec les énoncés suivant selon un barème qui varie de 1 (complètement d'accord) à 5 (complètement en désaccord). Si l'énoncé ne s'applique pas, veuillez cocher la colonne de droite. Il y a aussi de l'espace pour vos commentaires ci- dessous.  2. Rôles et Fonctionnement  1 (complètement d'accord) 2 (partiellement d'accord) 3 (ne sait pas) 4 (partiellement en désaccord) 5 (complètement en désaccord) (ne s'applique pas) 1.1. Au début, le mandat du Comité aviseur a été mis au clair nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 1.2. Présentement, le mandat du Comité aviseur est clair nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 1.3. Les objectifs du travail que réalise le Comité aviseur sont clairs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 1.4. Je comprends comment le travail du Comité aviseur mènera à des changements dans l’arrondissement nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 1.5 Les résultats attendus sont clairs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Commentaires 5 6 Page 4 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal 2. Le(s) rôle(s) du Comité aviseur est: Le développement d’idées  gfedc La prise de décisions  gfedc La recherche  gfedc Le développement de recommandations ou de projets  gfedc L’implantation de décisions et/ou de projets  gfedc L’action dans l'arrondissement  gfedc Le suivi et l’évaluation  gfedc Autre (veuillez préciser) Page 5 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal 3. Veuillez indiquer si vous êtes d'accord ou en désaccord avec les énoncés suivant selon un barème qui varie de 1 (complètement d'accord) à 5 (complètement en désaccord). Si l'énoncé ne s'applique pas, veuillez cocher la colonne de droite. Il y a aussi de l'espace pour vos commentaires ci- dessous.  1 (complètement d'accord) 2 (partiellement d'accord) 3 (ne sait pas) 4 (partiellement en désaccord) 5 (complètement en désaccord) (ne s'applique pas) 3.1. Le fonctionnement général du Comité aviseur est efficace nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 3.2. Le Comité aviseur est créatif nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 3.3. L'animation des réunion est bien adaptée aux besoins du Comité nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 3.4. Il y a une bonne communication lors des réunions nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 3.5. Il y a une bonne communication entre les membres entre réunions nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 3.6. La prise de décision se fait par consensus nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 3.7. Le processus de prise de décision est transparent nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 3.8. Le Comité aviseur a accès à l'information nécessaires à la prise de décision nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 3.9. Je suis satisfait du fonctionnement du Comité aviseur nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj  Commentaires 5 6 Page 6 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal Les prochaines questions abordent la prise de décision et la participation des membres et du public. 1. Ce qui décrit le mieux ma participation au sein du Comité aviseur est: 2. La façon dont la prise de décision se déroule correspond à mes attentes 3. Ma participation au(x) Comité(s) aviseur(s) contribue à un apprentissage personnel par rapport:  3. Participation Je suis informé(e) des décisions prises  nmlkj Je suis consulté(e) avant qu'une décision soit prise  nmlkj J'ai une influence sur la prise de décision  nmlkj Je participe activement à la prise de décision  nmlkj Commentaires Oui  nmlkj Non  nmlkj Si vous avez répondu 'Non', veuillez expliquer: 5 6 au fonctionnement de l’arrondissement (administration)  gfedc aux ressources qui existent dans l’arrondissement  gfedc aux différentes perspectives qui existent dans l’arrondissement par rapport aux problématiques que veut traiter le Comité gfedc aux contraintes et aux opportunités à changer le quartier  gfedc au travail et à la dynamique de groupe  gfedc à la prise de décisions publiques  gfedc Autre(s) (veuillez préciser) Page 7 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal 4. La charge de travail bénévole associée à mon implication au Comité aviseur est Trop chargée  nmlkj Chargée  nmlkj Adéquate  nmlkj Pas assez chargée  nmlkj Je n'ai pas de charge de travail autre qu'assister aux réunions  nmlkj Commentaires Page 8 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal 5. Veuillez indiquer si vous êtes d'accord ou en désaccord avec les énoncés suivant selon un barème qui varie de 1 (complètement d'accord) à 5 (complètement en désaccord). Si l'énoncé ne s'applique pas, veuillez cocher la colonne de droite. Il y a aussi de l'espace pour vos commentaires ci- dessous.  1 (complètement d'accord) 2 (partiellement d'accord) 3 (ne sait pas) 4 (partiellement en désaccord) 5 (complètement en désaccord) (ne s'applique pas) 5.1. Les Comités aviseurs sont connus par le public nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 5.2. Le travail que réalisent les Comités aviseurs est connu par le public nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 5.3. Les Comités aviseurs consultent le public et cherchent à connaître son opinion par rapport à leur travail nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 5.4. Le travail des Comités aviseurs reflète l’intérêt du public nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 5.5. Les Comités aviseurs sont perçus par le public comme étant légitimes nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 5.6. C'est important d'inclure l'opinion du public dans la démarche des Comités aviseurs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj  Commentaires 5 6 Page 9 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal Vous avez presque terminé le sondage!  Cette section vous invite à réfléchir à ce qui pourrait améliorer l'expérience des Comités aviseurs et de contribuer à leur durabilité. 1. La plus grande force des Comités aviseurs est:  2. La plus grande faiblesse des Comités aviseurs est:  3. Ce qui a été le plus utile à date est:  4. Ce qui a été le plus difficile à date est:   4. Espace "Feedback" 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6  Page 10 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal Ça y'est! La dernière section..  Ces questions vous demandent quelques informations afin de dresser un profile des membres des CA.  Nous vous remercions de votre participation et souhaitons recevoir vos questions et commentaires. 1. Âge: 2. Sexe: 3. Niveau d'éducation atteint: 4. Revenu annuel (brut):  5. Informations et prochaines étapes moins de 20 ans  nmlkj entre 21 ans et 30 ans  nmlkj entre 31 ans et 40 ans  nmlkj entre 41 ans et 50 ans  nmlkj entre 51 ans et 60 ans  nmlkj entre 61 ans et 70 ans  nmlkj 71 ans ou plus  nmlkj Femme  nmlkj Homme  nmlkj Secondaire  nmlkj CEGEP  nmlkj Collège Technique  nmlkj Université – premier cycle  nmlkj Université – deuxième cycle  nmlkj Université – troisième cycle ou plus  nmlkj moins de 20,000  nmlkj entre 20,000 et 29,999  nmlkj entre 30,000 et 39,999  nmlkj entre 40,000 et 49,999  nmlkj entre 50,000 et 59,999  nmlkj entre 60,000 et 69,999  nmlkj entre 70,000 et 79,999  nmlkj entre 80,000 et 89,999  nmlkj entre 90,000 et 99,999  nmlkj 100,000 ou plus  nmlkj Page 11 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal 5. Si vous êtes disponibles et intéressés à participer à une brève entrevue, veulliez indiquer comment nous pouvous vous rejoindre (vos coordonnées seront gardés en toute confidentialité).  Page 12 Comités aviseurs du Plateau Mont-Royal

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.310.1-0102530/manifest

Comment

Related Items