Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transparency And Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff map dozens of required reports; staff propose tighter tracking and committee review
Summary
Council staff and administration reviewed roughly 108 required reports across boards, commissions and departments and proposed centralizing publication, aligning effort with council utility, and deeper committee review of high-effort finance reports.
Maria Garnett, a council policy analyst, presented the second phase of a “Report of Reports” project to the Governmental Operations Standing Committee, summarizing the team’s inventory of required submissions and proposing next steps to improve tracking and usefulness.
Garnett told the committee staff identified about 81 reports required of boards, commissions and affiliate organizations and about 27 reports required from city departments; the latter number rose by two from the project’s first phase. “Most reports that are required of city departments are being submitted,” she said, but Garnett noted 10 of 27 department-level reports had no recent submission record and 4 had unknown effort levels.
Garnett said some missing reports may be nonapplicable in a given year or may have been submitted in formats that are harder to track. She proposed centralizing publication of required departmental reports—similar to how the Clerk’s Office lists board and commission reports—to make documents easier to find. She also recommended committee-led review (starting with finance) to align reporting requirements with council needs and to identify reports that could be revised or eliminated.
Administration staff joined the discussion. Adam Hull, a policy adviser, said the administration had self-identified several missing submissions and that any effort to resume reporting should be coordinated with council to ensure the work is useful. “Some of these reporting requirements were put into place over 20 years ago based on information and organizational structure that were present at that time,” he said, and recommended focusing on utility before restarting heavy-reporting obligations.
Committee members supported a collaborative next step. Garnett offered to deliver a third round of the project—an “effort-utility” analysis for selected finance reports—by November, and staff suggested soliciting feedback from outside users (advocacy organizations and reporters) to understand demand for particular reports.
The presentation was informational and the committee did not take formal action at the meeting.
