Audit of National Committees Governance

February 2020

Table of contents

1. Acronyms and abbreviations
2. Executive summary
3. Management's response to the audit
4. 1. Background
5. 2. Objective, scope and methodology
   • 2.1 Objective
   • 2.2 Scope
   • 2.3 Methodology
   • 2.4 Statement of conformance
6. 3. Audit findings
   • 3.1 Governance structures of national committees
   • 3.2 Committee processes in support of decision-making and tracking
   • 3.3 Committee performance
7. 4. Conclusion
8. 5. Recommendations
9. Appendix A – Audit objective and criteria
10. Appendix B – Committee descriptions
11. Appendix C – List of national committees reviewed during planning phase
12. Appendix D – TOR committee relationships and interactions
13. Appendix E – Detailed management action plans

Acronyms and abbreviations

CFAO

Chief Financial and Administrative Officer

CHRO

Chief Human Resources Officer

CM&C

Corporate Management and Comptrollership

CO

Commanding Officer

CSPPO

Chief Strategic Policy & Planning Officer

DG

Director General

HR

Human Resources

NIOC

National Integrated Operations Council

RCMP

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

ROD

Record of Decisions

SEC

Senior Executive Committee

SEC RSC

SEC Resourcing Sub-Committee

SMT

Senior Management Team

SPC

Senior Policy Committee

SPPD

Strategic Planning and Policy Directorate

TOR

Terms of Reference

Executive summary

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has a multi-faceted mandate with a complex operating environment that is constantly evolving. Its mandate is delivered through a decentralized organizational structure that is comprised of a National Headquarters and 15 divisions spread across the country. A network of national committees exists within this organizational structure to consult, advise and make decisions and/or provide oversight on subjects that impact the RCMP's ability to achieve organizational objectives and to promote a consistent approach to policies, programs and services. The Commissioner-approved 2017-2022 Risk-Based Audit, Evaluation and Data Analytics Plan included an Audit of National Committees Governance.

The objective of the engagement was to assess the role and mandates as well as the national committees' overall effectiveness in supporting organizational decision-making. The scope of the engagement focused on the activities of the following national committees for the period from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019:

• Senior Executive Committee (SEC)
• SEC Resourcing Sub-Committee (SEC RSC)
• Senior Management Team (SMT)
• National Integrated Operations Council (NIOC)
• Senior Policy Committee (SPC)

The audit also examined the relationships between these five committees and the other national committees that were identified during the audit's planning phase.

The audit concluded that while the design of the five committees examined could allow for the achievement of their mandates, these committees could better support decision-making through strengthened rigour and structure. Furthermore, there is a risk that committees may not be certain if decision items were being implemented as a result of inconsistent outcome tracking or if committees were contributing to organizational objectives due to the lack of performance monitoring. An adequate feedback loop can provide committees with greater oversight ability.

Areas for improvement include reviewing committee mandates and membership, establishing consistent processes to produce agendas and records of decisions, and tracking committee outcomes and/or performance to enhance accountability and oversight. Further improvement opportunities also include providing greater clarity for the sequencing of business items through the committee process, and ensuring that items have been reviewed, challenged, and/or approved by the appropriate committees.

The Strategic Policy and Planning Directorate (SPPD) is presently reviewing and implementing changes that may address some of these opportunities for SEC, SMT, NIOC, and SPC. However, SEC RSC and other national committees are not part of the SPPD review.

The management response and action plan developed in response to this report demonstrate the commitment from senior management to address the audit findings and recommendations. The RCMP Internal Audit will monitor the implementation of the management action plan and undertake a follow-up audit if warranted.

Management's response to the audit

Strategic Policy and Planning Directorate (SPPD) agrees with the findings and recommendations in the audit report. The audit has highlighted areas of improvement pertaining to committee governance and SPPD is already in the process of reviewing and implementing changes that address some of these opportunities for improvement.

SPPD will develop and implement a detailed management action plan to address the recommendations in the audit. The plan will include a review of committee governance structures as well as processes for decision item tracking and performance monitoring.

Caroline Weber
Chief Strategic Policy and Planning Officer

Corporate Management & Comptrollership (CM&C) and Human Resources (HR) branches agree with the findings and recommendations in the audit report. The audit has highlighted areas of improvement pertaining to the SEC Resourcing Sub-Committee (SEC RSC).

Chief Financial and Administrative Officer and Chief Human Resources Officer, as co-chairs of the SEC RSC, will develop and implement a detailed management action plan to address the recommendations in the audit. The plan will include a review of the SEC RSC Terms of Reference, as well as processes for decision item tracking and performance monitoring.

Dennis Watters
Chief Financial and Administrative Officer

Gail Johnson
Chief Human Resources Officer

1. Background

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has a multi-faceted mandate with a complex operating environment that is constantly evolving. The RCMP is unique in the world since it is a national, federal, provincial and municipal policing body.^{Footnote 1} Its mandate is delivered through a decentralized organizational structure that is comprised of a National Headquarters and 15 divisions spread across the country.

A network of national committees exists within this organizational structure to consult, advise and make decisions and/or provide oversight on subjects that impact the RCMP's ability to achieve organizational objectives and to promote a consistent approach to policies, programs and services. To support the RCMP's modernization, it is important that national committees are aligned with the organization's strategic objectives and that the committees themselves are aligned with each other in an efficient and effective manner.

The SPPD is responsible^{Footnote 2} for the provision of strategic policy advice and analysis, provision of executive and client services, and for enabling and ensuring strategy development and execution for government-wide priorities in the RCMP. SPPD is also responsible for providing secretariat support for several national committees. Secretariat responsibilities include, but are not limited to, making arrangements for committee meetings, maintaining a rolling agenda, and preparing records of decision.

The RCMP Commissioner, business line heads, Commanding Officers (CO), Criminal Operations Officers, and personnel are chairpersons and/or members of the various national committees and their roles and responsibilities are typically outlined in the committees' Terms of Reference. Business lines and program areas may be responsible for providing secretariat support services for committees and for developing and presenting materials at these committees.

The 2018 Audit on Policy Management - Phase One recommended that the RCMP consider strengthening the policy governance process to ensure that accountable structures are in place to support the SEC with evidence-based information for decision-making. In response to this recommendation, SPPD has consulted with business lines and divisions to assess the policy and planning governance process in order to provide SEC with options for consideration, with the view to formalizing an effective and efficient policy committee structure within the organization. Modifications to the strategic policy capacity and governance structure were ongoing during the course of the Audit of National Committees Governance.

The Commissioner-approved 2017-2022 Risk-Based Audit, Evaluation and Data Analytics Plan included an Audit of National Committees Governance.

2. Objective, scope and methodology

2.1 Objective

The objective of the audit was to assess the role and mandates as well as the national committees' overall effectiveness in supporting organizational decision-making.

2.2 Scope

The audit focused on the activities of the following national committees for the period from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019:

• SEC
• SEC RSC
• SMT
• NIOC
• SPC^{Footnote 3} (reconstituted as the DG-Level Policy Committee in 2019)

A high-level description of these committees is included in Appendix B. The audit also examined the relationships between these five committees and the other national committees that were identified during the audit's planning phase. See Appendix C for a list of these committees.

2.3 Methodology

Planning for the audit was completed in April 2019. In this phase, the audit team conducted interviews, identified national committees, and examined committee documentation. The audit objective and criteria are available in Appendix A.

The examination phase, which concluded in July 2019, employed various auditing techniques including document review, interviews, and relationship mapping. The audit team reviewed a variety of documents such as the Terms of Reference (TOR), meeting agendas and Records of Decisions (RODs) (including Records of Discussion, meeting minutes, item summaries and emails) for SEC, SEC RSC, SMT, NIOC and SPC. The audit team conducted interviews with members and support staff of these five committees. Interviewees were selected based on planning phase interview coverage, gender and diversity, National Headquarters and divisional representation, breadth of committee experience, rank and Category of Employee. Interviewees included Deputy Commissioners/business line heads, COs, Assistant Commissioners, Director Generals (DG), Criminal Operations Officers, business line executives and secretariat staff. In addition, the audit team mapped out the documented relationships between the committees identified in Appendix C.

The audit's findings reflect conditions observed during the two-year audit scope period ending on March 31, 2019. However, the audit team is aware that efforts to review and improve key committee structures are underway, and therefore some findings may have been addressed subsequent to the end of the audit's scope period. When known, ongoing efforts beyond the scope of this audit are acknowledged.

2.4 Statement of conformance

The audit engagement conforms to the Institute of Internal Auditors' International Professional Practices Framework and the Treasury Board of Canada Directive on Internal Audit, as supported by the results of the quality assurance and improvement program.

3. Audit findings

Sound committee governance is important to the RCMP as committees provide guidance to the organization by overseeing and evaluating organizational performance to ensure that activities contribute to the intended objectives. Committees serve to guide and direct activities to promote a consistent approach to policies, programs and services for the effective management and stewardship of the organization. In addition, committees provide oversight to enhance accountability for decision making at all levels of the organization with the intent to achieve organizational objectives and drive improvement.

Accordingly, concerning committee governance, we expected to find:

• Committees with clear and up-to-date TORs that are structured to support the achievement of their mandates;
• Detailed committee RODs that are clear, complete and communicated;
• Tracking of action items, with periodic progress updates and performance monitoring for committees; and
• An overall assessment of the organization's integrated committee governance structure.

3.1 Governance structures of national committees

Committee mandates, roles and responsibilities

The national committees that were examined as part of the audit had TORs that formally defined their purpose, mandates, roles and responsibilities, with the exception of SMT, which, as of March 31, 2019, did not have a TOR. Committee member descriptions of their committee's purpose, mandate, and roles and responsibilities were generally aligned with those defined within these TORs. However, interviewee descriptions of NIOC's and SMT's purpose and mandate were divided. Specifically, some committee members thought these committees were recommending bodies, while others thought they were decision-making bodies.

As the operating environment is constantly evolving, there is a need to conduct a periodic review of a TOR to ensure that committee mandates, roles, and responsibilities remain current and relevant. The audit team found that none of the TORs had a defined review period and that most of the TORs were outdated. For example, the current TORs for SEC and SPC were developed in 2010 and NIOC's 2010 TOR was updated on March 27, 2019. In contrast, The SEC RSC TOR was updated in 2018, one year after its inception. The audit team was advised that SPPD is currently drafting a SMT TOR and updating the SEC and SPC TORs.

SEC's and SPC's 2010 TORs were available on the RCMP's intranet site (Infoweb) but information related to SEC RSC, SMT and NIOC was not readily accessible.

Committee members indicated that training and orientation do not exist to assist new committee members in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities. Several interviewees noted that they received informal mentoring with respect to their new committee roles; however, this was inconsistent across committees.

Clear, current, and accessible TORs combined with initial member orientation and mentoring can help committee members better understand their respective committee's purpose, mandates, roles and responsibilities. As a result, this clarity may lead to more focused discussions and decisions that support the achievement of committee mandates.

Committee relationships and linkages

A key element of a TOR is to describe a committee's relationships for the purpose of understanding its expected interactions. As such, the audit team expected to find clearly defined relationships and linkages in committee TORs. We observed that TORs describe reporting relationships and interactions between committees, and with the exception of SEC, interviewees' descriptions of these relationships were aligned with these TORs. The SEC TOR only describes interactions with SPC while interviewees indicated that SEC also has interactions with SEC RSC, SMT and NIOC. These inconsistencies indicated that the SEC TOR requires updating.

Instances of committee interactions were also observed in each of the committees' minutes or RODs. Some of these interactions were in line with relationships described within the TORs. However, the audit team also observed additional interactions within the minutes or RODs that were not defined within the TORs. There is a risk that committees may not follow the required sequencing for business items, as defined by the governance structure. Overall, there may be more relationships and interactions in place than what is described within each committee's TOR.

The audit team also mapped out a set of documented relationships and linkages between committees by reviewing the TORs of the committees listed in Appendix C. This process determined that there are numerous one-way and/or reciprocal linkages and interactions across committees to fulfill the objectives of the RCMP. However, these linkages could be unreliable as the TORs were outdated, in draft form, and/or not consistent with each other. For example, committee A's TOR could indicate a relationship with committee B; however, committee B may not mention committee A in its TOR. In addition, committee TORs did not usually provide sufficient detail on how, when and in what order to navigate business items through the different national committees. Appendix D contains a table of relationships and linkages as identified in the TORs that were reviewed, which highlights the complexity of the national committees governance structure.

The audit team did observe guidelines surrounding the sequencing of policy items through the Policy Working Group and subsequently, the SPC, SEC and/or SEC Finance (now called SEC RSC)^{Footnote 4}. However, these guidelines did not refer to SMT or NIOC despite evidence indicating that these two committees have direct or indirect relationships with SPC, SEC, and/or SEC RSC.

Additionally, several current and former COs indicated that the sequencing of operational decision items was not ideal as they felt that decisions impacting their divisions' budgets and resources were being made at NIOC without being sent to SMT for their input. One former CO described this issue using the topics of Emergency Response Team standardization, moulded seats in cruisers, and hard-body armour as examples where Criminal Operations Officers (at NIOC) made important decisions without consulting with COs (at SMT) first.

Unclear linkages may lead to uncertainties and inconsistencies in committee sequencing, which may delay or impair organizational decision-making amongst national committees. Furthermore, the absence of a clearly defined process for how and when business items should be presented to committees may lead to decisions that have not been sufficiently and comprehensively reviewed, challenged, and/or approved by the necessary committees.

Committee membership

The composition of committee membership is an essential part of ensuring that committees function appropriately and meet their intended purpose. The audit examined committee membership and whether the membership may have had an impact on a committee's ability to meet its mandate. The audit team found that membership defined in TORs is typically associated with senior management positions within the RCMP. SMT does not have a TOR and therefore its membership was not defined in such a document. However, the audit team obtained a list of SMT's membership that was updated periodically due to changes/turnover in senior management. Furthermore, NIOC's 2019 TOR does not clearly specify all of its membership. Instead, this TOR states that in addition to the Chair, Co-Chairs and Criminal Operations Officers from each division, "senior executives from business lines" would be NIOC members. However, it is not specific as to which "senior executives" would be considered members.

Interviewees were asked whether they believe that their committee's membership was appropriate for the achievement of their committee's mandates. For the most part, interviewees indicated that membership in each of their committees was adequate but also that they felt their committees may be too large, may have some rank-disparity, and may not have sufficient divisional representation to promote open dialogue and to share relevant perspectives on issues. SMT interviewees expressed that committees may become too large when there are no clear limits to its membership, which can negatively impact decision-making. Furthermore, larger committees were said to possibly hinder discussion, especially when members are not familiar with the people around the table and if there is significant rank-disparity.

The audit team's interviews and review of agendas and RODs indicated that when committee members were unable to attend meetings, they typically sent a substitute in their place. However, committee members indicated that the effectiveness of substitute members varied depending on their background knowledge of discussion items and their expected role based on the committee's mandate (i.e. decision-making vs. information sharing). Furthermore, the audit team found that only the TORs for SEC, SEC RSC, and SPC describe requirements for substitute members. Of note, a good practice was observed in SEC RSC's TOR that specifically identifies a list of pre-approved designated substitutes in case a committee member cannot attend. This can reduce the risk that members are not fully informed or up-to-date on items being discussed. It can also ensure that substitute attendees meet the expected positional level that is necessary to perform an effective challenge function and to make decisions or recommendations on behalf of the member they are replacing.

Interviewees also indicated that gender diversity in all five committees' membership has increased; however, the majority also stated that other Employment Equity groups were not well represented. The general consensus was that there is still room for improvement. However, since members are appointed based on their position, increased diversity would depend on staffing and succession planning which are outside the control of these committees. The underrepresentation of Employment Equity groups in the officer cadre was also identified and reported in the 2019 Audit of Staffing of Regular Members under the RCMP Act – Phase Two (Commissioned Officers)^{Footnote 5}. According to the RCMP's 2017-2018 Annual Employment Equity Report, promoting diversity and inclusion encourages the use of practices in the organization that ensure that multiple points of views are considered in setting the course for the organization.

Although there are benefits to including as many people in discussions and presentations as possible (i.e. more people are informed or are available to potentially contribute different perspectives), larger groups can reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of committee meetings and decision-making. Though outside of the scope period, the audit team was advised that SEC has made decisions on SEC's and SMT's membership during its May 22, 2019 and June 21, 2019 meetings respectively.

3.2 Committee processes in support of decision-making and tracking

Defining committee processes is important as it provides direction and clarity regarding how a committee conducts business. Processes are important in the support of committee decision-making and tracking organizational outcomes because they define how committee discussion items should be proposed, discussed, decided on, documented, and monitored. In offering this direction, decision-making processes can help identify the proper channels to follow and avoid undue delays in decision-making.

Purpose of agenda items

SEC members indicated that they thought it was clear when a decision or recommendation was being sought because information pertaining to an item's purpose is described within the agenda. This practice was first observed in SEC's November 14, 2017 meeting agenda. Agenda item purposes were not observed for SEC RSC and SPC.

Although discussion item purposes are not specifically stated in NIOC agendas, the three Co-Chairs and its secretariat have indicated that as part of NIOC's new agenda item vetting process, sponsors must complete a form that states the purpose of the agenda item being proposed. This form is similar to one that is used for SEC.

The purpose of agenda items was also observed in the main SMT agendas but not the separate SMT CO Caucus agendas. However, although SMT agenda items were mostly for information or discussion purposes, SMT members consistently indicated that it is not always clear what outcomes presenters were seeking and why certain topics required in-person discussion. SPC members also expressed the opinion that the intended purpose of agenda items may not always be clear.

Clear expectations can help committee members focus on providing the direction or decisions sought by item sponsors or presenters to move issues forward, potentially resulting in more efficient decision-making.

Processes to reach a decision

The SEC and SPC TORs indicate that their Chairs are responsible for deciding whether decisions will be determined by consensus or majority vote. In contrast, the NIOC and SEC RSC TOR do not clearly state how recommendations or decisions are determined, but information about non-voting substitute members may imply that voting on what to recommend to the Commissioner occurs at SEC RSC. SMT did not have a TOR therefore formal guidance or expectations on how outcomes are determined was not documented.

During interviews, the majority of committee members across all five committees indicated that decisions are made based on consensus around the table. SEC members also indicated that occasionally, voting might be involved. However, despite indications that voting may occur at SEC, SPC and SEC RSC, the documentation/tabulation of votes was not observed by the audit team within these committees' RODs.

RODs across all five committees typically contained documented outcomes such as information, direction, recommendations, and/or decisions; however, aside from SEC RSC, few RODs had details regarding how these recommendations and/or decisions were determined (e.g. voting results or how consensus was reached). Details surrounding how decisions were reached could increase transparency by documenting the committees' deliberative processes and demonstrate that committees exercised their due diligence (e.g. performing a challenge function) before arriving at a decision.

Committee outcomes - documentation

Outcomes such as decisions, recommendations or action items were observed in certain RODs for some of the committees. Certain RODs were not obtained because they were either not produced following the meeting, or because the secretariat could not locate them. RODs were available for 78% (62/80) of committee meetings during the scope period, as confirmed by secretariat employees. More specifically:

• 74% (29/39) for SEC
• 94% (17/18) for SEC RSC
• 57% (4/7) for SMT
• 100% (8/8) for NIOC
• 50% (4/8) for SPC

While the SEC, NIOC, and SPC TORs provide guidance on what to include in RODs, the level of detail, completeness, and communication of RODs varied among and within committees. For example, of the four SMT meeting RODs, the formatting and structure differed and the level of detail ranged from RODs containing detailed decisions to brief summaries of meeting discussions. Furthermore, the NIOC RODs also ranged from presentation decks to word documents which had varying levels of detail.

Furthermore, while RODs are typically shared with committee members when drafted by the secretariats, further dissemination outside of the committee is dependent on the individual members. As of March 31, 2019, RODs from these five committees were not made available on the Infoweb. However, subsequent to the audit scope period, the audit team was advised that senior management is considering a plan to make SEC, SMT, and NIOC RODs available on the Infoweb as part of the RCMP's Vision 150 initiative.

If RODs are not clear, complete and communicated in a timely manner, business lines and divisions may take actions that are inconsistent with committee expectations. Furthermore, the publication or dissemination of RODs would increase transparency of decision-making in the organization as well as promote awareness of key initiatives and changes.

Additionally, secretariat staff for all five committees indicated that committee documentation is primarily stored on shared network drives and that in relation to document retention, the RCMP's Information Management Manual would apply. However, the secretariat for SPC was unable to locate or provide historical information such as meeting dates, correspondence, agendas or RODs for SPC meetings held between April 1, 2017 and March 15, 2019. Instead, the audit team obtained documents from a committee member. The absence of historical information makes it unclear whether meeting outcomes were recorded and maintained in accordance with RCMP information management requirements. Improper documentation also makes it difficult for stakeholders to examine decisions that were made or to track action items. As a result, this may affect business continuity and accountability for the implementation of action items and make it difficult for committees to assess their performance.

Committee outcomes - tracking

The audit team did not observe any formal tracking tools or periodic updates on outstanding action items although the 2010 TORs for SEC, NIOC and SPC clearly indicate an expectation that outcomes such as decisions, recommendations or actions would be tracked by the secretariat and updates would be provided to the committees periodically.

Members from all committees described the responsibility for tracking of outcomes inconsistently. Members either indicated that the secretariats were responsible for tracking, that sponsors/presenters tracked for themselves, or that there was no tracking at all. In contrast, secretariat personnel from SPPD indicated that business lines are entrusted to keep track of action items and to implement decisions. There may be confusion among committee members and secretariat personnel about who is responsible for tracking action items. This uncertainty could reduce the visibility of action items and hinder their implementation.

The audit team was advised by the secretariats for each committee that they do not currently use any documents or tools to keep track of action items. However, the audit team noted that SEC RSC documents recommendations to the Commissioner in their RODs but did not have mechanisms to track an item's implementation following the Commissioner's approval.

The level of detail of RODs varied and seldom clearly identified responsible parties and diary dates. It could be implied that sponsors/presenters are responsible for implementing action items when responsible parties are not identified. However, unless specifically instructed to do so, the sponsors/presenters may not bring the issue back to the committee. Committees would benefit from more formal, clear outcome tracking so that they can improve the accountability, monitoring, and implementation of action items.

Secretariat support and effectiveness

The role of a secretariat is to support a committee by making arrangements for meetings and maintaining formal records of the committee's process and decisions. The audit examined whether committees have secretariat support and whether committee members believe that this support was adequate. The audit team found that committee TORs define who is responsible for secretariat support and what their roles and responsibilities include. More specifically:

• The Governance Secretariat (previously called the SEC Secretariat) within SPPD provides secretariat support to SEC and NIOC. The audit team was advised that the Governance Secretariat supports SMT as well.
• The Policy Committee Secretariat, also within SPPD, provides secretariat support to the SPC.
• A small group within Corporate Management and Comptrollership (CM&C) provides secretariat support to the SEC RSC.

With the exception of SPC that did not meet regularly during the audit scope period, members indicated that they were generally satisfied with the secretariat support their committee receives. However, common areas for improvement, as suggested by interviewees, included:

• Greater scrutiny on what is placed on meeting agendas to ensure items are relevant and ready for discussion and/or decision.
• More timely receipt of materials in advance of meetings so that members can be better prepared.
• More detailed RODs.
• Tracking of action items.

Consistent documentation requirements/templates (e.g. for TORs, agendas, and RODs) would clarify the criteria to be included on a committee agenda and identify deadlines for information submission. These documentation requirements may allow secretariats to better assess agenda items, receive and disseminate materials in a timely fashion, and ensure that information is consistently captured across all committees.

Secretariat personnel indicated that resource limitations impact their capacity to provide better support to the committees they are responsible for. Three SEC members and all three NIOC Co-Chairs also raised this concern. The audit team was also advised that SPPD would be the secretariat for the new Management Advisory Board^{Footnote 6}. This additional responsibility may further compound this concern. Secretariats should consider the merits of consolidating efforts, reviewing resource allocation, and/or streamlining processes to address concerns relating to resource and capacity limitations.

3.3 Committee performance

Effective committee performance is important because it enables committees to achieve their mandates, support organizational decision-making, and also contribute to the achievement of organizational objectives. Therefore, the audit examined whether committee performance is monitored periodically to ensure that committees remain relevant and any opportunities for improvement are identified.

Frequency and duration

The frequency in which a particular committee should meet is defined within each committee's TOR. However, only SEC RSC and NIOC had meeting agendas and RODs to demonstrate that they met at the frequency that is defined within their TORs. While SMT does not have a TOR, both interviewees and meeting documentation indicated that SMT meets three times per year.

The SEC TOR indicates that it meets once every two weeks (i.e. approx. 26 times per year). However, the audit team obtained documentation showing SEC met 39 times (including special meetings) during the two-year scope period and observed in SPPD's files that it had 17 cancellations. Although SEC may not have consistently met every two weeks during the scope period, SEC members indicated that more focused agendas might allow the committee to meet less frequently. This could be accomplished through improved vetting of the decision-readiness of items prior to the SEC meeting by the new DG-Level Policy Committee.

The SPC TOR indicates that SPC meets twice per month (i.e. approx. 24 times per year). The audit team found information for a total of eight meetings during the two-year scope period. Notably, there were one-year and eight-month gaps before the last two scheduled meetings. This corroborated interviewee statements that SPC was not meeting regularly to achieve the mandate described in its TOR.

With the exception of SPC members, interviewees indicated that in their experience, meeting frequency should be sufficient for their committees to achieve their mandates. However, the duration of meetings and time allotted to specific agenda items can be improved to allow for thorough discussions and to reach decisions or recommendations, specifically at SMT and NIOC. SMT and NIOC members interviewed expressed that they wanted to see better control of agendas, with clear outcome expectations for items (i.e. purpose for presentation), to limit agenda items to only those specifically requiring the attention of their membership during in-person meetings. In their view, other forums can be used to provide updates to committee members such as the Commissioner's morning briefs/CO Caucus or NIOC videoconferences. Subsequent to the audit scope period, the audit team was advised that the Commissioner's Wednesday morning briefs/CO Caucus now includes items that are SMT-related.

Individual committee meeting frequency could impact the sequencing of business items within the overall governance structure. For example, while SMT and NIOC in-person meetings are held approximately once every four months, SEC is to be held once every two weeks. The difference in meeting frequency between these committees could result in a backlog of items that should go through NIOC and SMT prior to going to SEC.

Performance monitoring

Evidence of formal and consistent mechanisms to periodically assess performance, such as annual reports or performance measures, were not observed within any committee reviewed during the course of this audit. Committee members consistently indicated that committee performance measurement and reporting did not exist, or that they were unaware if such mechanisms existed. However, interviewees from SEC, SMT, as well as NIOC expressed that there has been occasional roundtable discussions and/or informal exchanges concerning their committee's performance in the past. These discussions revolved around committee structure, membership, logistics, or other opportunities for improvement.

However, despite the lack of performance monitoring, interviewees generally believed that their particular committees were achieving their mandates, with the exception of SPC that did not meet regularly during the scope of the audit. SMT committee members indicated that SMT's mandate and role are not clearly defined and understood. This lack of clarity may exist because SMT did not have a TOR. Also, the absence of a clear mandate would make performance measurement difficult since there are no expectations to measure against.

Overall, committee members believed that committee decisions, when they exist, are being implemented. However, the lack of formal performance monitoring coupled with the lack of action item tracking and periodic updates meant that members could not be certain if decisions or recommendations were being implemented as discussed and if expected outcomes were being achieved. There is a risk that committee members may not be aware if their committees are effectively contributing to organizational objectives and decision-making. An adequate feedback loop can provide committees with greater oversight ability. As part of the decision-making process, committees and their members should be accountable for the recommendations or decisions they provide, even if they are not assigned the responsibility for the implementation of these directions or decisions.

Furthermore, while SEC and SEC RSC had mechanisms for documenting committee attendance, SMT, NIOC and SPC did not. Documented attendance is important to form part of the corporate record and can serve to strengthen the accountability of committee members present at the time a decision or recommendation was made. This can assist in enhancing oversight and implementation of decisions/direction.

Interviewees also advised the audit team that there has not been an overall assessment of the RCMP's integrated committee governance structure (i.e. committee linkages, duplication of effort, gaps, sequencing, and performance) by senior management. Furthermore, a comprehensive list of national committees was not observed.

An analysis of the organization's collective committee governance structure can help identify opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of organizational decision-making. While SPPD's current committee review encompasses only SEC, SMT, NIOC, and SPC, it should consider the merits of expanding the scope of its review to ensure that there is a holistic review of national committee governance beyond these key committees.

4. Conclusion

While the design of the five committees examined could allow for the achievement of their mandates, these committees can become more effective and efficient in supporting organizational decision-making through strengthened rigour and structure. Furthermore, there is a risk that committees may not be certain if decision items were being implemented as a result of inconsistent outcome tracking or if committees were contributing to organizational objectives due to the lack of performance monitoring. An adequate feedback loop can provide committees with greater oversight ability.

Areas for improvement include reviewing committee mandates and membership, establishing consistent processes to produce agendas and RODs, and tracking committee outcomes and/or performance to enhance committee accountability and oversight. Further improvement opportunities also include providing greater clarity for the sequencing of business items through the committee process, and ensuring that items have been reviewed, challenged, and/or approved by the appropriate committees.

SPPD is presently reviewing and implementing changes that may address some of these opportunities for SEC, SMT, NIOC, and SPC. However, SEC RSC and other national committees are not part of the SPPD review.

Although the Audit of National Committees Governance only examined five committees, other national committees are also part of the RCMP's governance framework as they interact with these five committees, directly or indirectly. Therefore, all national committees should consider these opportunities for improvement to ensure a cohesive governance structure that better supports organizational decision-making and the achievement of RCMP objectives.

5. Recommendations

1. The Chief Strategic Policy & Planning Officer (CSPPO), in consultation with the committees supported by SPPD (SEC, SMT, NIOC, and SPC), should:
   1. review and document committee mandates, processes, and/or membership; and
   2. improve consistency, completeness, and level of detail of committee records of decisions.
2. The CSPPO, the Chief Financial and Administrative Officer (CFAO) and the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO), in consultation with the committees supported by SPPD (SEC, SMT, NIOC, and SPC) and CM&C/HR (SEC RSC), should:
   1. clarify and/or document committee linkages in TORs;
   2. consider the merits of communicating committee records of decisions;
   3. track and report on the implementation of committee outcomes and/or performance measures; and
   4. identify and implement opportunities to enhance secretariat capacity and committee support.
3. The CSPPO should consider expanding the scope of SPPD's governance review beyond SEC, SMT, NIOC and SPC to provide a holistic review of the organization's integrated committee governance framework and to identify opportunities to improve its effectiveness in supporting organizational decision-making.

Appendix A – Audit objectives and criteria

Appendix B - Committee descriptions

The Senior Executive Committee^{Footnote 7} is the senior most decision-making body in the RCMP. The SEC is responsible for setting the overall strategic direction and vision for the RCMP, establishing strategic priorities, and making final decisions regarding key RCMP policies, programs, and documents for Cabinet consideration. The SEC is chaired by the Commissioner of the RCMP and includes representation from Deputy Commissioners or equivalents, including the Commanding Officers from both 'E' and 'K' Divisions, and from all business lines of the RCMP.

The SEC Resourcing Sub-Committee^{Footnote 8} is mandated to provide appropriate oversight and stewardship of financial decisions before they are presented to the Commissioner. It provides advice, recommendations, and guidance to the Commissioner and SEC regarding the management of the RCMP's financial and human resources. The SEC Resourcing Sub-Committee is co-chaired by the CFAO and the CHRO. Its members include all Deputy Commissioners, the CSPPO, the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive and the Professional Responsibility Officer.

The Senior Management Team^{Footnote 9} is a forum that allows the Commissioner to seek input and gather different perspectives from senior management on issues of interest prior to final decisions being made. SMT is chaired by the Commissioner and its membership includes all members of SEC, all COs and select senior executives at the RCMP National Headquarters.

The National Integrated Operations Council^{Footnote 10} is a forum responsible for providing advice to the Senior Management Team on horizontal operational and policy issues facing the RCMP. It allows the senior executive team at National Headquarters and Criminal Operations Officers in the divisions to anticipate and address organizational issues and Government priorities. It is chaired by the Deputy Commissioners of Contract and Indigenous Policing, Federal Policing and Specialized Policing Services. It is also co-chaired by the Assistant Commissioner Contract and Indigenous Policing, Assistant Commissioner Federal Policing and the Criminal Operations Officer from "E" Division. Its membership includes divisional Criminal Operations Officers and senior executives from business lines.

The Senior Policy Committee^{Footnote 11} is a senior-level forum that reviews and makes recommendations regarding major RCMP policy, program, planning and strategic communication proposals before they are considered at SEC, and is a decision-making body for less significant RCMP policies and programs. It is co-chaired by the CSPPO and its membership consists of RCMP Assistant Commissioners and equivalents.

Appendix C - List of national committees^{Footnote 12} reviewed during planning phase

• Commissioner's Advisory Committee on Visible Minorities (CACVM)
• Commissioner's National Indigenous Advisory Committee (CNIAC)
• Committee for Assets and Materiel (CAM)
• Committee on Digital Investments (CODI)
• Departmental Audit Committee (DAC)
• National Council for Diversity and Inclusion (NCDI)
• National Gender and Harassment Advisory Committee (NGHAC)
• National Integrated Management Committee (NIMC)
• National Integrated Operations Council (NIOC)
• National Labour-Management Consultation Committee (NLMCC)
• National Marine Advisory Group (NMAG)
• National Policy Health and Safety Committee- Public Service (NPHSC-PS)
• National Policy Health and Safety Committee-Member (NPHSC-M)
• National Vehicle Equipment Committee (NVEC)
• National Youth Advisory Committee (NYAC)
• NIOC Mandatory Training Oversight Sub-Committee (NIOC MTOSC)
• Operational Equipment Oversight Committee (OEOC)
• Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee (PMEC)
• Policy Working Group (PWG)
• RCMP Investment Prioritization Committee (RCMP IPC)
• Real Property Advisory Committee (RPAC)
• SEC Resourcing Sub-Committee (SEC RSC)
• Senior Executive Committee (SEC)
• Senior Management Team (SMT)
• Senior Policy Committee (SPC)
• Uniform and Equipment Committee (UEC)

Appendix D - TOR committee relationships and interactions

• Commissioner
  • Receive advice and recommendations from SEC RSC
  • NPHSC reports to Commissioner
  • Receive ROD from NPHSC
  • Receive advice and recommendations from NPHSC
  • Receive advice from NGHAC
  • UEC reports to Commissioner
  • Receive advice from CNIAC
  • Receive advice from CACVM
  • Receive advice and recommendations from PMEC
  • Receive ROD from PMEC
  • SEC RSC reports to Commissioner
  • Receive advice and recommendations from DAC
• CACVM
  • Advise Commissioner
• CNIAC
  • Advise Commissioner
• CAM
  • Provide recommendations to IPC
  • Collaborate with SEC RSC
  • Collaborate with SMT
  • Collaborate with NIOC
  • Collaborate with IPC
  • Assist OEOC
  • Receive input from OEOC
• CODI
  • Provide recommendations to IPC
  • Receive recommendations from CODI-WG
  • Accountable/report to IPC
• CODI-WG
  • Provide recommendations to CODI
• DAC
  • Provide advice and recommendations to Commissioner
• NCDI
  • Accountable/report to SEC
  • Issue recommendations to SEC
• NGHAC
  • Advise Commissioner
  • Provide synopsis of meetings to SEC
  • Present advice to SEC
• NIMC
  • Provide guidance and recommendations to SEC
  • Receive guidance and recommendations from NIMSC
  • Receive cases from NIMSC
• NIMSC
  • Provide guidance and recommendations to NIMC
  • Advance cases to NIMC
• NIOC
  • Provide information to SMT
  • Receive direction from SMT
  • Provide recommendations and advice to SMT
  • Provide/receive recommendations to/from MTOSC
  • Receive MTOSC feedback from SMT
  • Provide SMT feedback to MTOSC
  • Receive compliance reports from MTOSC
  • Consider recommendations from OEOC
  • Collaborate with CAM
  • Provide recommendations to SEC (2010 NIOC TOR)
  • Provide SEC with a consultative body (2010 NIOC TOR)
  • Provide PWG with a consultative body (2010 NIOC TOR)
• LMCC
• NMAG
  • Bring issues to NPHSC for consideration
• NPHSC (PS and Members)
  • Reports to the Commissioner
  • Provide ROD to Commissioner
  • Provide advice and recommendations to Commissioner
  • Undefined relationship with NVEC
  • Consult with OEOC (NPHSC-Members only)
  • Consider issues from NMAG
• NVEC
  • Provide decisions and recommendations to SEC for consideration
  • Provide decisions and recommendations to SEC RSC for consideration
  • Undefined relationship with NPHSC
• NYAC
• NIOC MTOSC
  • Provide/receive recommendations to/from SEC
  • Provide/receive recommendations to/from NIOC
  • Provide compliance reports to SEC
  • Provide compliance reports to NIOC
  • Receive SMT feedback from NIOC
• OEOC
  • Provide recommendations to SEC for consideration
  • Provide recommendations to SEC RSC for consideration
  • Provide recommendations to NIOC for consideration
  • Consult with NPHSC-M
  • Provide input for CAM consideration
  • Receive assistance from CAM
• PMEC
  • Provide advice and recommendations to Commissioner
  • Provide ROD to Commissioner
• PWG
  • Provide recommendations to SPC
  • Brief respective SPC members
  • Consult with NIOC (2010 NIOC TOR)
• IPC
  • Provide recommendations to SEC RSC
  • Receive recommendations from RPAC
  • Receive recommendations from CODI
  • Receive recommendations from CAM
  • Collaborate with CAM
  • CODI accountable to IPC
• RPAC
  • Provide recommendations to IPC
  • Provide recommendations to SEC RSC
• SEC RSC
  • Reports to the Commissioner (accountability)
  • Provide advice and recommendations to Commissioner
  • Provide ROD to SEC
  • Provide updates to SEC
  • Provide updates to SMT
  • Implement SEC Decisions
  • Consider recommendations from OEOC
  • Consider recommendations from NVEC
  • Collaborate with CAM
  • Receive recommendations from IPC
  • Receive recommendations from RPAC
• SEC
  • Receive ROD from SEC RSC
  • Consider recommendations from NVEC
  • Receive updates from SEC RSC
  • Provide SEC RSC with decisions for implementation
  • Consider recommendations from OEOC
  • Be briefed by respective SPC members
  • Delegate items to SPC
  • Receive recommendations from NCDI
  • NCDI accountable to SEC
  • Ratify SPC decisions
  • Receive recommendations from SPC
  • Receive compliance reports from MTOSC
  • Receive recommendations from MTOSC
  • Receive guidance and recommendations from NIMC
  • Receive advice from NGHAC
  • Receive synopsis of meetings from NGHAC
  • Receive recommendations from NIOC (2010 NIOC TOR)
  • Consult with NIOC (2010 NIOC TOR)
• SMT
  • Receive information from NIOC
  • Provide feedback to MTOSC through NIOC
  • Delegates to or directs NIOC
  • Collaborate with CAM
  • Receives updates from SEC RSC
  • Receive recommendations and advice from NIOC
• SPC
  • Provide recommendations to SEC
  • Make decisions delegated from SEC
  • Have decisions ratified by SEC
  • Brief respective SEC members
  • Be briefed by respective PWG members
  • Provide recommendations to SPC
• UEC
  • Report to Commissioner

Appendix E - Detailed management action plans

Date modified:

2020-05-19