• In 2014, financial reporting to council was reinstated after a shocking report revealed that a decision years earlier had removed council’s direct oversight over the tracking of approved capital projects. Staff control over the projects without council oversight led to $755 million worth of work going largely unaccounted for, with some projects never completed or in many cases even started, despite being approved and budgeted for by council.

• In 2012, city councillors chastised staff after finding out through the media that Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commission ordered the city to release costing details for the controversial downtown redevelopment and city hall expansion after staff denied residents the information. The IPC ruling came after a freedom of information request by a resident, but staff said delegation of authority allowed them to keep FOI details from council.

• In 2013 a practice was halted that had allowed senior staff to spend $43,000 of public funds the previous year to attend Susan Fennell’s private events when she was mayor. Staff said the money was spent without council’s knowledge under a community event sponsorship program and that they were allowed under rules to spend taxpayer dollars to attend the lavish events without council approval. It was eventually revealed that staff had spent $175,000 on Fennell’s events over the years while council was kept in the dark.

• In 2016 veteran councillors testified in the ongoing lawsuit over the SWQ development that senior staff never told them they had authorized the use of $480,000 of taxpayer money to help secure land needed for the project.

Wednesday’s report was brought forward following a recent police investigation launched after a June internal audit report that revealed senior staffers for years paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses to non-union employees without council’s knowledge or approval. The police investigation found no criminal wrongdoing by staff in the payment scheme referred to as outside policy requests. The staff report on the police investigation explained that previous delegation of authority, granted years before the secret bonus payments were made to staff without council’s knowledge, technically excused senior managers from keeping council and taxpayers in the dark.

During Wednesday’s committee meeting, Regional Coun. Gael Miles, who was the city’s budget chair for much of the period identified in the June audit report that exposed the bonus program, and who faced criticism as budget chief for approving staff budget presentations with little council scrutiny, voiced concern over the proposed safeguards to prevent a repeat of the secretive bonus payment scheme.

“It’s still fuzzy for me,” Miles said, indicating the proposed recommendation is not clear on checks placed on bureaucrats. “Can I use the recent example of (OPR, the bonus scheme) that was administered by the chief administrative officer and the commissioners (since 2009)? The one that the audit committee reported back to us.

“If the chief administrative officer is allowed to develop and approve administrative policies, and if we are using that kind of example where the administrators determine there was a need for remuneration out of policy from the original HR policies that were adopted by council, how do those two work together?”

Harry Schlange, the city’s chief administrative officer, responded curtly. “First of all, the chief administrative officer should never be developing an out of policy request — ever. I would have to come back to council to adjust the policy.”

Schlange, who led the major overhaul of staff since his arrival last year, overseeing the dismissal of dozens of managers and senior bureaucrats, has criticized city leaders in the past for employing “archaic” policies in the governing of Canada’s ninth largest city.

“I can’t modify policy without going to council,” he said Wednesday.

Jeffrey called existing policies that give staff decision-making power out of date and in need of a major overhaul.

She said it “alarms” her “when I hear the words disorganized, unclear and exposure for the corporation. This process is long overdue.”

She said the “ambiguity” and lack of clarity about what senior staff can and can’t do has caused “a lot of challenges”.

Granting broad powers to non-elected municipal officials can create significant risk, as highlighted by Wednesday’s report, and some municipal experts argue there needs to be proper oversight to prevent staff from abusing such power.

“The job of council is to pay attention. There has to be checks and balances,” said Stephen Bauld, a procurement expert with a background investigating municipal fraud.

But questions are being raised about whether council was paying attention while senior staff kept them in the dark, using their powers under delegated authority.

"I recall sitting around this table when, in 2011, the consolidated delegation of authority bylaw came before us,” Coun. Elaine Moore said during Wednesday’s meeting, recalling that the bylaw brought forward then was supposedly going to do what the new proposal aims to do now. “All the same reasons for doing it were presented to us then. Some of us had some concerns about it. At the end of the day it did pass.”

She then welcomed Wednesday’s recommendations. “This certainly makes me more comfortable with the delegation of authority bylaw.”