Archived Content Contenu archivé 103.p3 n35 1986-eng.pdf · 95 97 136 154 155 160 160 160 163...
Transcript of Archived Content Contenu archivé 103.p3 n35 1986-eng.pdf · 95 97 136 154 155 160 160 160 163...
ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé
Archived Content
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Contenu archivé
L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.
This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request.
Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.
I11II
I11II11II1III
JL103.P3N351986
National Parole Board
Organizatiortal Review
Final Report
November 7, 1986
Canad'a'
CoPYIP
not belong to the Cran.
er aulhorren MiStbe obtamed irom
?top
tne author for
any \Mende use
tes droits dauteur duprésent document n'appartiennent
,çe à État.Ioute utiktietiion
du contenu du présent
docurne,n1 dri■1 être approwee préataberient
par t'auteur.
e7Mationa1 Parole Board
Organizational Review
Final Report
UMAR'? SOLICiTC't UNERAL, CANADA
CT 1 1993 CT 1993
14:1A
•
KIA OP8
, 1986 November 7
95
97 136 154 155 160 160 160 163
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction
I Background of The Organizational Review
H Methodology of the Organizational Review
III The National Parole Board and its Work
2
5
13
Factor #1 Factor #2 Factor #3 Factor #4 Factor #5 Factor #6 Factor #7 Factor #8
- Conditions - Facts of the Case - Rules - Morality - Procedures - Options - Implications - Strategies
25 44 49 72 76 81 84 89
IV The National Parole Board as an Organizational Structure Options for Change
Question #1 Question #2 Question #3 Question #4 Question #5 Question #6 Question #7 Question #8
V Recommendations for Change 173
Appendix A
Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F
- Work Plan for the NPB Organizational Review
- Data Collection and Analysis document - Suggested Questions for the Interview - Communications Plan - Memo from the Chairman - Interview Schedule
Organizational Charts 1 to 39
November 7, 1986
I
III
I
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
[DRGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
FINAL REPORT
The purpose of this Final Report is to present to the Chairman, National
Parole Board for his consideration, key findings, options and recommenda-
tions for change based on the examination of the organizational struc-
ture, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior
staff positions within the National Parole Board.
The format of this Report is as follows:
I - Background of Organizational Review
II - Methodology
III - The National Parole Board and its Work
IV - The National Parole Board as an Organizational
Structure - Options for Change
V - Recommendations for Change
I
- 2 -
Section I Background of the Organizational Review
In February 1986, the then Chairman of the National Parole Board (NPB),
with the support of the Vice-Chairman and the Executive Director, decided
to undertake a review of the organizational structure of the NPB with
particular emphasis on an examination of those senior staff positions
reportinq directly to the Executive Director. It was decided that
through an examination of the work processes derived from the roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions of these specified senior staff
positions that chanqes might be proposed which would address some of the
problems and issues identified in previous studies and reports conducted
under the aegis of the P!PB. At the time the decision was taken to
proceed with the Oraanizational Review, it was noted by the then
Chairman that the environment within which the NPB had manaqed its
affairs in the recent past was rapidly changing and that the Review could
provide an opportunity to assess and address the potential impact of key
environmental changes on the work and functions of Board members and
staff. Some of the anticipated chances included the imminent retirement
of the then Chairman and the appointment of a new Chairman, recommenda-
tions directed towards the NPB contained in the Program Review Report on
Justice (Neilsen Task Force), the increasing number of court challenges
to NPB decisions under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the
recent establishment of the NPB Appeal Division pilot project, proposed
amendments to the Parole Act which would add to the volume and complexity
IIIIIIIIII1IIIIII
- 3 -
of NPB decision-making processes, new central agency requirements for
decreased program expenditures and increased demands for agency accounta-
bility, effectiveness and efficiency.
It was becoming clear at that time that all the anticipated changes over
which the NPB had little control were negatively affectino Board members
and staff and as a result a sense of doom and gloom and uncertainty
pervaded the interna] environment of the NPB.
Following the decision to undertake the Organizational Review, Sheila
Murray, an officer in
Board Secretariat, was
was decided that the
the Temporary Assignment Pool (TAP) of the Treasury
seconded to the NPB to carry out the project. It
overall direction for the work to he undertaken
would be provided by the NPB Organizational Review Reference Croup,
composed of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Executive Director. The work
would be carried out over a seven (7) month period and would culminate in
a Final Draft Report to be presented to the Review Reference Group for
review, discussion and revision prior to beino distributed to Board
members and staff for review, discussion and revision. In its final
form approved by the Chairman, the Organizational Review Report would
thus reflect the prevailing concerns and general approbation of Board
members and staff vis à vis the options and recommendations contained
therein. The intent was to then formulate a time-framed plan of action
for implementation by the NPB of the preferred and approved options and
recommendations. A memo from the Chairman to all Board members and staff
.../4
- 4 -
outlinina the decisions taken on the final Report of the Orqanizational
Review was planned as the last step in the Review process prior to the
implementation of the action plan. During the Review process some
changes have occurred to lengthen the original time-frame and to expand
the data collection process. These changes will he described in more
detail in the methodology section of this Report.
.../5
III1IIIII11IIIIIII
- 5 -
I
I
III1IIIIIIIII
Section II Methodology of the Organizational Review
It was decided to divide the Review into eight (8) phases, each of which
would be time-framed and within which specific activities could be
identified and approved by the Review Reference Group prior to heina
actioned by the Review project leader. As a result, a Work Plan for the
Organizational Review, a Data Collection and Analysis document outlining
the nature of the data collection process including the positions and
persnns to be interviewed and the suogested questions for the Interview,
and a Communications Plan for the O.rqanizational Review, were formulated
and approved by the Review Reference Group by the end of March 1986.
(See Appendices A, B, C, D). On April 10, 1986, a memo from the then
Chairman, outlining the purpose and nature of the Organizational Review
was sent to all NPB responsihility centres for distribution to all Board
members and staff. (See Appendix E).
The eight phases of the Review were as follows:
Phase 1: Orientation of NPB members and staff to purpose and methodology
of Review.
Phase 2: Assessment of statutory, organizational and operational envi-
ronment within which NPB carries out its mandate.
Phase 3: Definition of functions performed within each organizational
unit of the National Parole Board.
- 6 -
Phase 4: Identification of variances between mandated functions and
actual work performed by each organizational unit of the
National Parole Board.
Phase 5: Definition of the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions
of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole
Board with particular reference to policy development and
implementation of a strategic, operational and administrative
nature.
Phase 6: Assessment of the functional relationships between and among
specified senior staff and relevant subordinate staff within
the existing structural and operational organization of the
National Parole Board.
Phase 7: Assessment of the structural and operational efficiency and
effectiveness of the National Parole Board as an organizational
entity with respect to its existing mandate.
Phase 8: Presentation of recommendations for change in the organiza-
tional structure, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions
of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole
Board.
The original focus of the first five (5) Phases of the Review was the
collection of data and information through informal conversations and
consultations and formal interviews with members of the Review Reference
group, selected staff at headquarters and in regional offices and with
selected officials in the Department of the Solicitor General and
.../7
- 7 -
IIIIIIIIIII
I
Correctional Services of Canada. (CSC). At the request of Board members
during the April 1986 General Board meeting, the then Chairman decided
that full-time Board members should be included in the Review interview
process because of the importance of the operational relationships
between Senior Board members and Reaional Directors and hetween all Board
members and staff to the examination of roles, responsibilities, duties
and functions of senior staff in regional offices and at headouarters.
At the outset of the Review process, the Review Workplan had included a
case-study focussed Workshop for selected Board memhers and senior staff
scheduled for mid-July durino the final stages of Phase 5. This case-
study approach was designed to focus on the analysis of the policy
development process in the NPB with respect to the role of Board members
and the role of staff and as a result clarify the work and roles of
specified senior staff in the policy development and implementation
processes of the NPB. With the inclusion of Board members as partici-
pants in the Review process, the case-study Workshop was deleted and
replaced by scheduled interviews with full-time Board members in regional
offices and in the Appeal Division at headquarters durine Phase 4 in the
month of June. It was felt that a comprehensive interview process which
included all full-time Board memhers and selected staff was preferable to
a relatively restricted case-study process given the importance of the
issues and concerns surroundinq the policy formulation and implementation
processes in the NPB. Once these interviews with Senior Board members
and regular full-time Board members had been concluded, a request was
made through a Senior Board member (SBM) to the Chairman that Temporary
I
- 8 -
Board members be included in the interview process. As a result, it was
decided by the Review Reference Group that telephone interviews should be
conducted by the Review project leader with two (2) Temporary Board
Members (TBM's) from each region during Phase 6 of the Review.
In addition to these interviews with Board members it was decided that
the attendance of the Review Project leader as an observer at NPB Panel
Hearings in penitentiary settings would contribute to her appreciation of
the volume and complexity of the work impacting the roles, responsibili-
ties, duties and furctions of Board memhers and thereby to a better
understanding of the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of NPB
staff inemhers whose work is directed towards the support of Board
decision-making processes. Throughout the Review, the Project leader
attended, as an observer, a variety of meetings, including meetings of
the NPB General Board, Senior Manaoement Committee, Senior Staff Manage-
ment Committee, Headquarters Directors, NPB-CSC Interlinkages Committee
and meetings of other NPB staff groups of a less formal nature. At the
request of the Chairman, the Project leader participated as a member of
the NPB Task Force on Mission and Guiding Principles in the meetings,
consultations and deliberations conducted by the Task Force over the June
to Octoher period.
Complementary to these interview and meeting processes were the processes
of collection, review, analysis and synthesis of data and information
contained in the form of statutes, regulations, policies, procedures,
I1IIIIII
IIIIIIIII1
- 9 -
directives, guidelines, studies, papers, reports, case files, organiza-
tion charts, job descriptions, job classifications, reporting relation-
ships, delegated authority, information and communications systems,
coordinating mechanisms, audit and evaluation processes, multi-year
operational plans, estimates, annual reports, pamphlets and guides.
Through conversations and informal consultations with Board members and
staff, sources for and contents of data and information pertinent to the
Review were identified, provided, clarified and verified. In addition a
review of literature pertinent to oroanizational design, behaviour and
change was undertaken by the Project leader.
As a result of the expanded interview schedule and the participation of
the Review project leader in the Task Force on Mission and Guiding
Principles, the time-frame of the Review was extended by five (5) weeks.
The date for presentation of the final Draft Report of the Organizational
Review to the Oroanizational Review Reference Croup is now October 31,
1986 rather than September 26, 1986.
Data and information pertinent to the examination of the NPB organiza-
tional structure, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of
specified senior staff positions have been collected, analysed and
synthesized through the following specific interview processes:
o Interviews with 58 executive, senior and junior staff members of the
NPB of which 30 were regional staff and 28 were HQ staff;
.../10
-1n -
o Interviews with 22 full-time Board members, including the former and
current Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Chairman of the Appeal Division and
all Senior Board Members; one regular full-time Board memher was
unavailable on short notice due to an emergency interim Hearing;
o Interviews by telephone with eight temporary Board members - two TBM's
were not available;
o Interviews with 12 executive and senior staff members within Solicitor
General's department and CSC; one person from the Secretariat was
unavailable; (See Appendix F- Interview Schedule).
Each person who was interviewed was sent, prior to the scheduled inter-
view, a copy of the Organizational Review Work Plan, of the Data
Collection and Analysis document and of Suggested Questions for the
Interview. Interview questions were customized to the particular indivi-
dual or grouping of individuals to be interviewed. As a result, inter-
view questions were designed for the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Executive
Director, Senior Board Members and full-time Board members, Temporary
Board members and officials in the Department of the Solicitor General
and Correctional Services of Canada. Letters of introduction and expla-
nation of the Organizational Review were sent by the Chairman and/or the
Executive Director to individuals and/or to NPB and other responsibility
centres external to the NPB prior to the establishment of interview
schedules and the actual interview conducted by the Review project
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
- 11 -
1
IIIIIIIII1III
leader. This protocol without doubt set the stage for the interviews and
enhanced the opportunities for meaningful discussions and data collec-
tion.
Throuqhout the Peview process, Board members and staff, without excep-
tion, were more than helpful and unusually frank and open in answering
the questions posed. Despite the prospect of yet another study impinging
on their busy work schedules, most individuals had taken time prior to
the interview to read the material and prepare answers to the ouestions.
In fact, interviews originally scheduled for ninety (90) minutes usually
exceeded that and stretched to two (2) hours. In most instances, discus-
sions with staff members could have consumed most of a working day, had
time allowed for such. Discussions with officials from the Department of
Solicitor General and CSC were marked by the openness and frankness of
the comments and most particularly by the good will exhibited towards and
concern for the speedy resolution of current issues and problems within
the NPB and between the NPB and their respective organizations.
As noted in the memo from the Chairman to all Board members and staff,
dated 21 July 1986, in which he outlined the progress of the Organiza-
tional Review, the data and information collected through interviews and
the review of documentation provides the basis upon which recommendations
for changes within the NPB will be proposed. The next section, Section
I
-12 -
III, of this Report - The National Parole Board and its Work - hopefully
will reflect the analysis and synthesis of these data and information
upon which Section IV - The National Parole Board as an Organizational
Structure, Options for Change, will be based.
.../13
I
IIIIIIIIIIIII
- 13 -
Section III - The National Parole Board and its Work
In reporting the key findings of the Organizational Review derived from
the analyses and synthesis of data and information collected, several
factors have been considered to be of critical importance to the descrip-
tion and subsequent understanding of the work processes undertaken by
Board members and staff. It is within the context of these key factors
that the findings are reported and recommendations made. These factors
are:
a) Environmental factors: those factors, internal and external to the
NPB, with impacts on regional and headquarters case-focussed and non-
case-focussed work, such as the various publics or populations which
are impacted by the work of the NPB and which can be identified as
clients, cooperators or collaborators, lobby or influence groups,
authorities, special interest groups, general public.
b) General or Corporate Management factors: those factors, internal and
external to the NPB, arising from statutory and requlatory authori-
ties, including decision-directives from Treasury Board Secretariat,
Office of the Comptroller General, Office of the Auditor-General,
Public Service Commission, NPB Mission, Guiding Principles, policies,
procedures, directives, routines and strategies which govern the
long-term planning, organizing, controllinq and evaluating functions
of Board members and staff within the NPB as a corporate entity.
I
- 14 -
c) Operational Management factors: those factors, internal and external
to the NPB, arising from statutory and regulatory authorities, includ-
ing court-based rulings directed towards Board decision-making
processes, NPB Mission, Guiding Principles, policies, procedures,
directives, strategies and routines which govern the day-to-day
planning, organizing, controlling and evaluating functions of Board
members and staff within the NPB, as an operational agency.
d) Resource Management factors: those factors, internal and external to
the NPR, arisino from statutory and regulatory authorities, including
the fiscal and accountability frameworks of the federal oovernment and
the general and specific policy decision-directives flowing from such,
NPB Mission, Guidino Principles, policies, procedures, directives,
strategies and routines which govern the day-to-day and lono term
planning, acquisition, organizing, allocatino, controlling and evalua-
ting of resources, with respect to individuals, information, technol-
ogy, equipment and dollars within the NPB.
e) Organizational Behaviour and Culture: those factors, internal and
external to the NPB, rooted in the history, institutional elements,
myths and symbols of the NPB as a unique agency within the Canadian
criminal justice system, and which impact on relationships between
Board members, between Board members and staff, between staff in
regions and staff in headquarters, between the NPB and other agencies
and departments in the federal, provincial and municipal spheres of
.../15
- 15 -
I
I
II
I
government and between the NPB and its various publics. It is
probable that the most critical factor to be considered vis à vis NPB
culture and ornanizational behaviour is the capacity and willingness
of individuals within the NPB to understand, cope with and adapt to
chanqe. For this reason, the rate of chanae proposed for implementa-
tion of any of the recommendations contained in this Report must be
examined with an eye to the impact on individuals and groups to whom
the change is directed.
f) Organizational Structures: those factors, internal and external to
the NPB, arising from statutory roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions of Board members and staff in general terms and with respect
to specific positions in the NPB organization. These factors include:
levels of authority within the organization; span of control of
managers, line and staff reporting relationships between positions;
contiquity of positions in the reporting structure; variances between
position descriptions, position classifications and actual roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions; variances between the require-
ments for timely, accurate and relevant data and information and the
realization of such; variances between the actual requirements for
resources with respect to person years, technology and dollars and the
current allocation of such pertinent to particular work processes in
the organization; distinctions between corporate and operational
roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of Board members and
staff; distinctions between fragmented work processes and holistic
- 16 -
work processes with respect to the value added by each position in the
organizational structure; distinctions between simple and differenti-
ated organizational structures with respect to the nature of the work
processes and the need for generalized and specialized functions. It
is within the context of the increasino volume and complexity of Board
decision-making processes and the impacts of such on the volume and
nature of staff case-focussed operational and corporate work, that the
key findings of the Oroanizational Review will be considered in this
section of the Report.
In an ideal world, the statutory requirements of the National Parole
Board could be given effect, in an operational sense, solely by Board
members acting individually and collectively. In the real world of the
NPB, however, the volume and complexity of the Board member's work,
derived from their statutory roles, responsibilities, duties and func-
tions under the Parole Act, is such that assistance by persons who are
not Board members is required. That is, assistance to and support of
Board members' work is provided by public servants appointed in accor-
dance with "machinery of government" statutes, such as the Public Service
Employment Act, and whose roles, responsibilities, duties and functions
are defined in broad terms under such statutes as the Financial
Administration Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, Treasury
Board policies, directives and guidelines. Within this broad public
service or government statutory framework, the roles, responsibilities,
duties and functions of the public service staff of the NPB are defined
.../17
- 17 -
1
11
IIIII
through job descriptions within the qeneral context of day-to-day opera-
tional assistance to and direct support of the work of the Board members,
long term support of the NPB as a corporate entity, or agency, operating
within the criminal justice system and federal sphere of government. It
is clear that harmonization of the distinct statutory but linked day-to-
day roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of Board members and
staff is essential to a high level of achievement of the NPB statutory
mandate, mission, goals and objectives.
Clarity of statutory roles, responsihilities, duties and functions
reinforces the distinct nature of the work of Board members and staff.
One way to test the distinction between the roles and responsibilities of
Board and staff is to ask - To Whom? and Suhject to What statutory
authority? is each group accountahle. It is only through the statutory
authorities vested in the Chairman of the NPB, in his roles as Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, that respective Board and staff
accountahilities are joined. Otherwise, and on a day-to-day basis, each
group is accountable to the Chairman for exercising its roles, responsi-
bilities, duties and functions in accordance with the requirements of the
respective statutory authorities. This is not to imply, however, that
Board members and staff insulate or isolate themselves from a common
understanding of their separate and distinct statutory obligations.
Quite the contrary situation should apply if the interdependent nature of
their work and unity of mission is to be characterized by excellence.
During this study, Board members and staff, on a selected basis, as
- 18 -
outlined in the Organizational Review Work Plan, have described and in so
doing, have, as individuals, clarified their roles, responsibilities,
duties and functions.
The clarity resulting from these individual discussions with Board
members and staff will undoubtedly become clouded in the attempt to
transform individual interpretations of their roles, responsibilities,
duties and functions into a collective description of such. With such a
disclaimer in mind, it nevertheless appears that there is a high dearee
of clarity and of understanding of the statutory roles, responsibilities,
duties and functions of Board members among Board members and senior
staff. To a lesser degree, there is clarity and understanding of the
statutory roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of NPB staff
among Board members, particularly, among Temporary Board members whose
exposure to NPB staff is limited by the itinerant nature of their work.
As well, to a lesser degree, there is a clarity of understanding of the
statutory, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of Board members
among junior level NPB staff, particularly at headquarters. Clarity of
the NPB corporate mission and values reinforces the commonality and unity
of purpose of the work of Board members and staff. Currently, under the
leadership of the Chairman of the NPB, all Board members and all staff
have been asked to participate in a process designed to formulate a
statement of NPB mission and values which will guide their work and that
I
IItIIII
AtIIII
II
-19 -
of the NPB as a corporate entity. Currently, the draft or working state-
ment of mission which is under discussion by all Board members and staff
is:
The National Parole Board, as part of the Criminal
Justice System contributes to the protection of society
hy making independent quality decision related to condi-
tional release and the reintegration of offenders.
As well, as a component of this strateoic planning process, Board members
and staff have completed a questionnaire designed to elicit individual
responses to draft statements of Principles or values which in final form
will guide their work in the future. Clarity in statutory roles, respon-
sibilities, duties and functions and clarity in mission and values should
strenothen each oroup's capacity to carry out its work and opportunities
for creativity and innovation in the ways in which Board members and
staff work together to achieve the NPB Mission.
Not only does the mission statement provide a specific commonality-of-
purpose link between Board and staff members, the mission also provides a
link between the NPB as a corporate entity and other agencies and depart-
ments within the criminal justice system. Once again, although the
statutory roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of the NPB are
quite distinct and separate from those of other agencies and departments,
clearly these organizational entities are linked by commonality of
.../20
- 20 -
general purpose, that is, the administration of justice in accordance
with the precepts of the rule of law and natural justice. As well, all
agencies and departments are linked operationally through "machinery of
government" policies, guidelines and directives on a day-to-day basis,
through the authority vested in Ministers and ultimately through the
authority of Parliament over each agency and department of government.
NPB staff, more so, than Board members, through exercising their corpo-
rate roles, responsibilities, duties and functions provide the day-to-day
operational links with "machinery of government" agencies such as the
Treasury Board Secretariat, the Office of the Controller General and the
Office of the Auditor General.
Implicit within the mission statement is the need to strike a balance
between the NPB organizational requirements for a sphere of independence
within which it can carry out its statutory mandate and achieve its
mission and the NPB organizational requirements for operational interde-
pendence with other aciencies and departments in order to obtain resources
and support for carrying out its mandate and mission at the hiqhest level
possible. More explicitly, there is a delicate balance between the
preservation of the NPB's independence in decision-making pertinent to
conditional release and the reintegration of offenders, that is, freedom
or insulation from day-to-day interference or political control over
Board member decision-makinq and the promotion of corporate NPB interde-
pendence and accountability in operational decision-making within the
qeneral governmental policy framework. This balance clearly varies from
IIIIIIIIII11IIIIIII
- 21 -
IIIIIIt1It1tII
issue to issue and shifts in accordance with the nature and impact of the
many environmental factors impinging on Board members and staff as they
carry out their work. At this point, it may further our understanding of
the organizational relationships between Board members and staff to
consider that the NPB as a corporate entity actually incorporates two
separate organizations, that of the Board and that of the staff. The NPF3
in its Board organization and functions resembles a political organiza-
tion and therefore tends to use political systems to function, i.e.
co-operation is contracted informally, periodically, if not freauently
and in non-routine ways. Accordinq to Joseph Bowers in his hook, The Two
Faces of Management (1983):
A political system is usually measured by tests of the
organization's process and the pattern of distribution of
benefits consequent upon its activity, accountability and
legitimacy.
It is his view that the "products" of political systems are usually law
and public policy. It is typical in a political manaqement system for
several individuals or coalitions to each control separate ingredients of
the administrative systems required for effective action. Consequently,
members are regularly in a position to bargain over goals and the distri-
bution of benefits to he qenerated by collective action. On the other
hand, the NPB in its staff organization and functions is essentially a
technocratic organization. In a technocratic organization, the systems
.../22
1
-22 -
function on the basis of formally contracted co-operation which is
intended to last a long time and which is exemplified by routines and
procedures. Again according to Bower:
It is the premise of routine cooperation that permits us
to build complex, differentiated organizations that can
undertake difficult tasks of development, production and
distribution.
A technocratic system is usually measured by tests of organizational
outcomes - efficiency and effectiveness. In Bower's view the leadership
of a technocratie management system has authority over the contract, the
inducements and the purposes of the organization, that is, control over
information, budget and personnel. As noted earlier, it is throuoh the
Chairman as Chief Executive Officer that the leadership of Poard and
staff organizations is joined.
It is evident that Board members in exercisino their statutory roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions seek the highest possible level of
what K.C. Davis calls "administrative discretionary justice."
Administrative discretionary justice is the resolution of
the legal, moral, factual and other practical issues
which arise in a situation where an official person
acting in a capacity, which is, in the final analysis,
.../23
- 23 -
I
1
ItIIIIII1
IItI
defined and limited by government legislation makes a
just decision which results in action or inaction which
affects other persons.
In this definition, the notion of a "just" decision is simply defined
according to those precepts that define the notion of natural justice.
In Davis' view, an official making an administrative decision in accor-
dance with his notions of discretionary justice would consider the
following types of factors: leoality, morality, facts of the case, just
procedures, possible decisions, the implications or effects of the
decisions and the strategies used to implement a decision. It is also
his view, that consideration of these objective types of factors is
instrumental to the preservation of the integrity of the subjective or
discretionary decision-makinq process.
Given that Board members consider a variety of objective factors in their
decision-makino pertinent to the conditional release and reintegration of
offenders, it may be useful to the determination and clarification of the
distinct but linked roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of
Board members and staff to describe in more detail, the types of factors
suggested by Davis and elaborated by Peters, Marshall and Shaw in their
paper - The Development and Trials of a Decision-Making Model - An
Evaluation, published in the Evaluation Review, February, 1986. Through
the description of these factors pertinent to administrative discretion-
ary decision-making, it becomes possible to examine the critical and
.../24
- 24 -
sometimes problematic nature of the functions which are and should be
carried out by NPB staff in their roles of assistance to and support of
the Board members prior to, during and after Board decision-making
processes.
This approach will consider the staff functions as components of the work
processes designed to identify, collect, analyse, synthesize and dissemi-
nate data and information pertinent to the Board member decision-making
processes related to conditional release and reintegration of offenders.
Crucial to the effectiveness and efficiency of these information-based
work processes are the ongoing harmonious relationships among Board
members, between Board members and staff and among staff. According to
Chester Barnard in his book, The Functions of the Executive, (1939):
Organizations come into being because individuals want to
do something that they cannot accomplish acting alone.
They agree to contribute effort cooperatively, discuss
their objectives and communicate about their work.
It is also his notion that in order to understand how to manage or
influence organizations, one needs to know why members cooperate, how
goals are chosen and what, where, why and how information is disseminated
and used. At this point, it therefore seems both timely and appropriate
to begin the examination of the nature of Board and staff functions
.../25
I
rA1IIIIIAI1IIIIII
- 25 -
within the framework of Board decision-makino processes and related staff
work. To do this, I propose use the factors in the decision-makino model
proposed by Peters, Marshall and Shaver.
Factor il - Conditions: those provisions or prerequisites that must be
satisfied prior to the commencement of the decision-making
process. The conditions do not in any way guide a decision
but instead determine when it is proper for an official to
wake a decision.
To a large extent these conditions are set out in the Parole Act, regula-
tions, NPB policies, procedures, directives, and NPB-CSC Administrative
Agreement. In general terms, through the current case management work
processes, staff review individual offender's case files in order to
verify the contents, attest to its completeness and in the absence of
such, collect missing data and information from various sources and
validate the "tombstone" data pertinent to the offender including his/her
parole eligibility date prior to Board member review and decision making
on such.
It is in the process of specifying and satisfying prior conditions that
one finds:
.../26
- 26 -
o that case management work processes and the critical functionsl
contained therein, are divided into pre and post board decision work
routines;
o that there is a "scientific management" or assembly-line approach to the
division and distribution of case-based work processes and critical
functions. This results in a piece-work approach such that each offender
file is worked on by several staff, each performinn several tasks and
routines comprising one or more of the critical functions;
o there appears to be overlapping, if not common data and information
requirements for several of the critical functions. This is not surpris-
ing due to the fact that an individual case file is the primary source of
these data and infornation.
It is also not surprising that Board members comment on the bureaucratic
way in which staff work is organized especially in light of the situation
whereby a Board member, seeking clarification of the data and information
a case file, has to consult several staff during the routing of the case
through the NPB office prior to and after Board decision making. One
Critical functions were first identified in the NPB Regional Workload Study
of 1985 and confirmed in the NPB Management Operational Review of 1986.
These 14 critical functions are the basis of the NPB communications study
currently underway.
.../27
I
11IIIrIIIA
ItItII
- 27 -
must question why the case management work processes are not organized on
a case load approach whereby a number of case files are assigned to
individual staff members, who each become responsible and accountable for
the identification, collection, analysis, synthesis and dissemination of
data and information pertinent to Board member decision-making proces-
ses. This approach would be more conoruent with the functional require-
ments of an information-based oroanization such as the NPB and would also
mean that a Board member could consult, as necessary, with the staff
member most knowledgeable about the contents of the case file throughout
the life of the case within the NPB. In the context of staff assistance
and support to Board members during the decision-making processes either
in the NPB office or at Panel Hearings, it is conceivable that the staff
member who has worked on the case file or several case files with the
same Panel Hearin° dates and locations, could attend the Panel Hearings
as the Hearing Clerk or Officer. Continuity and wholeness of work
processes would be more satisfying to staff and to Board members alike,
would create opportunities for strengthening of board/staff relationships
and overall would contribute to improved availability, and Quality of
information and data essential to Board decision-making processes. The
strong possibility exists that there will be less time devoted to track-
ina files within the NPB and more time devoted to work on the files,
i.e. more efficient and effective work processes.
.../2 8
- 28 -
Another condition to be satisfied is that of ensuring through scheduling
of Board member's workload, that the requisite number of Board members is
available at the required times and in the required locations to under-
take the decision-making processes.
The satisfaction of this condition also implies that each Board member
and staff member is fully conversant with: the statutory authorities,
policies, procedures, directives and provisions of the NPB-CSC
Administrative Agreement which govern Board memher roles, responsibili-
ties, duties and functions; the NPB Mission and Guiding Principles which
guide their work; the critical issues and environmental factors, emanat-
ing from within the NPB, from within the criminal justice system and from
within the larger governmental context, which will have an impact on
their work. To a lesser extent, each Board member should be conversant
with the statutory authorities, operational policies, procedures, direc-
tives and guidelines governing the work of staff. Each Board member
should also comprehend the raison d'être of the work of the staff and the
staff work processes undertaken to support and assist Board decision-
making. Staff must be fully conversant with the statutory authorities,
policies, procedures and directives which oovern their own roles, respon-
sihilities, duties and functions and to a lesser degree, conversant with
those governing Board members.
.../29
I11AIrIr
Ia1IIIIIII
- 29 -
II1
1IIIII1I1I1II
It is in this process of specifyinq and satisfying this condition that
one finds:
o that there is a lack of clarity and distinction between the roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions of Senior Board Members and
Regional Directors in NPR Regional Offices.
As noted earlier, the statutory authorities and accountabilities, organ-
izational systems and functions, outcomes or "products" and measures of
the work of each are distinct and different. The success of the SB,I's
and RD's work is interdependent, particularly, if one considers that the
client for both is the offender requesting conditional release and that
the organizational leader for both is the Chairman. Of all the stresses
and strains placed on the Board-Staff relationships during onooina day -
to-day operations in a Regional Office, the issue upon which most SBM and
RD relationships founder is that of resource management. This issue
becomes maqnified and more or less intolerable, depending upon the
overall Board-staff relationships, in situations where the allocation and
control of resources for Board decision-making processes negatively
impacts the scheduling of Board member's work, the composition of Board
member panels, travel and accommodation of Board members, orientation
training and ongoing professional development of Board members.
.../30
r
.../31
-30 -
Clearly, the SBM and each Board member, full-time, temporary or community
is accountable to the Chairman for ensuring that Board decision-making is
carried out in accordance with the statutory reouirements, NPB mission,
policies, procedures and directives. As well, the SBM is accountable for
ensuring that there is a requisite number of Board members, grouped and
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the particular decision-
making process, in the right place and at the right time. The process of
satisfying this condition is both time-consuming and complex due to a
large number of factors such as: the large volume and increasing
complexity of Board decision-making processes; the large number of loca-
tions for Panel Hearings; the wide geographic dispersal of these loca-
tions; the small number of full-time Board members relative to the number
of Temporary Board members; the itinerant nature of work assignments for
Temporary and Community Board Members; the short tenure for Temporary Bo-
ard Members; the differing levels of competence, confidence and prepared-
ness of Board members to undertake decision-making processes individually
and collectively. In terms of dealing with all these issues impacting on
this condition, it is clear that the SBM and the RD each have a key but
distinct role to play in satisfying this condition. Under the different
governing statutory authorities for an SBM and an RD, the SBM is not held
accountable for resource management whereas the PD is held accountable
for such under the Financial Administration Act. Similarly, the RD
cannot be held accountable for Board member decision-making whereas the
- 31 -
1
r
1tIIIAItI1
II
SBM is held accountable on an individual basis and in a corporate Board
sense to the Chairman for the decision-making processes in a particular
reqion.
The SBM, as the senior regional Board member with the most intimate know-
ledge of the Board decision-making processes and of the factors impinging
on Board members' work, should have the primary role and responsibilities
for the composition of Board member panels in order to enable Board
members to carry out their roles, responsibilities, duties and functions
with excellence. The RD, on the other hand, as the senior regional staff
member with the most intimate knowledge of the corporate and operational
factors impinging on staff and on NPB resource management, should have
the primary role and responsihilities for the planning, obtaining,
organizing, allocating, controllino and evaluatino, the use of regional
resources aiven the determination of Board member reauirements made by
the SBM.
These two distinct roles and responsibilities should not be exercised in
ways in which the SBM and RD work in isolation. If they do work this
way, then one can expect to find a lack of common understandinq and
agreement on the data and information required, the format of such, the
rationale for resources, and eventually a wide gap between resource
requirements and their allocation. Neither should the SBM and RD
exercise their roles and responsibilities in a hierarchical fashion. If
they do, then one can expect to find competition and eventually a power
...,/32
I
- 32 -
struggle for dominance in regional authority with all the attendant
fall-out in terms of staff and Board split into factions, diversion of
focus from mission to gamesmanship, squandering of time and poor quality
work. Rather the SBM and RD must work together as a leadership team in
the Regional offices each with egual status both in the Regional Offices
and within their respective Board and staff organizations. This team
leadership should be carried out with the common understanding that the
day-to-day work of the staff must be directly related to and in support
of the Board decision-making processes. It is essential that the SBM and
RD formally schedule and regularly meet, not just for resource discussion
purposes but also to deal with the multitude of issues of a specific
regional nature and also of a general corporate nature. This approach
will require that both the SBM and RD consider how they currently appor-
tion their time and to what issues and how they should reallocate their
time in light of this suggestion for e team-based Regional Leadership ap-
proach. Later in this report other functions requiring a team approach
to SBM-RD Regional Leadership will be suggested.
For example, this team approach will require than an SBM devote approxi-
mately 20% of his/her time to corporate Board business, such as General
Board, Executive Committee, Senior Management Committee meetings and
ongoing contact with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other regional Board
members. Of the remaining 80% of his/her time, the SBM should devote
approximately 10% to regional leadership responsibilities shared with the
RD. Approximately 10% of the SBM's time should be devoted to regional
.. ./33
- 33 -
Board member issues, i.e., Board member orientation training and profes-
sional development pertinent to Board decision-making processes, Board
member performance counselling and appraisal. The remaining 60° of the
SBN's time should be devoted to decision-making on cases. This approach
will require that the RD devote approximately 80% of his/her time to the
regional operational functions, such as case mananement, public informa-
tion and education, orientation training and professional development of
staff and Board members; administrative systems and services. Of this
80°,, approximately 10°I' of the RD's time should be devoted to regional
leaderhsip responsibilities shared with the RD. Approximately 10,%) of the
RD's time should he devoted to individual staff members issues. The
remaining 20,',q' of the RD's time should be devoted to corporate operational
management business, such as, Senior Management Committee, Management
Committee, NPB-CSC operational issues, contact with the Executive
Director, HQ Managers and other Regional Directors. Obviously, these
percentages are very tentative and approximate; however, the exercise of
allocation and management of time is often the key to improved effective-
ness and efficiency in its use. Given the existinq perceptions and
realities of the workload of both Board and staff members in Regional
Offices, time must he considered as a scarce and therefore costly
resource to be carefully conserved.
Other issues which cloud the clarity of the roles, responsibilities,
duties and functions of the SBM and RD include policy and procedure
development, ongoing evaluation of the outcomes of case management and
.../34
- 34 -
decision-making processes, training and professional development and
public information and education. All of these issues impinge on the
Board decision-making processes and staff work in support of such. For
this reason, these issues must he dealt with in order to satisfy the
conditions requisite to Board decision-making. Clearly, the multifaceted
nature of the issues points to their resolution at the regional level. by
the SBM and RD and at the corporate level by the Chairman in consultation
with the Executive Director.
It is during the day-to-day work of regional Board and staff members that
identification of policy and attendant procedural issues occurs.
Currently, there is limited attention and underdeveloped capacity in
regional offices to undertake strategic thinking on policy and procedural
issues. Rather, regional Board and staff seek interpretation of these
issues from HQ on a case-by-case basis. Frequently the questions asked
by regional Board and staff are in the form of What, Who, How, Where and
When, rather than Why, that is, more procedural than policy in nature.
As a result of these questions over time, the NPB has produced a rather
voluminous Policy and Procedures Manua]. which is viewed not only as
daunting by most users but also as essentially procedural in nature
rather than policy, and thus not reflective of the general stance of the
NPB on issues of importance to NPB work and to its corporate health and
welfare. To a large extent, the procedures guiding Board members and
staff in their work are mostly developed and in daily use; however the
policy stances are in the latency stage of development. It is probable
.../35
11III1rI
I1I1III
procedural
Management
- 35 -
that through the NPB Strategic Planning process this policy void will be
addressed; however, it is also timely and appropriate that reoional Board
and staff members begin to locus attention on the identification of
policy stances which would contribute to consistency and promotion of
excellence in their daily work.
the SBM and the RD that these
routines should be identified
It is through the regional leadership of
policy stances and attendant
and brouet to the Senior
Committee, the Executive Committee and the Management Committee. For
example, if through these committee appraisal processes, a proposed
policy is deemed to be needed across all regions, then the Chairman
would, through the Executive Director, assign the further development of
such to a team of Regional and HO staff whose work would be subject to
final draft approval hy the Chairman prior to presentation to the
Executive Committee for final discussion and final approval. The inter-
pretation of the new policy would then become the responsibility of the
SBM and the RD who in the final analysis are the persons who apply
policies and their attendant procedures in their daily work. On an
exceptional basis and for interpretations of a legislative and lecial
nature, the Regional Offices would seek advice on policy from the
Chairman's office. Policy by its nature is broad and thus subject to
variations in its application. Policy, as well, to be credible must be
reflective of and open to reaional interpretation in its application. It
is therefore important that NPB policies are formulated and defined in
such a way that there is a range of interpretation and application within
which, the SBM and RD can be held accountable. Consistency of interpre-
.../36
- 36 -
tation and application of policies on a regional basis ensures that local
differences in offender population and environment factors impinging on
Board and staff work are accounted for. The range of policy interpreta-
tion would be national in scope and the interpretation within that range
and application would be regional.
Cognizant of the fact that policy issues and their discussion have in the
past, bedevilled the relationships between the NPB as an aqency and the
Solicitor General's department, between Board members and staff, between
headquarters and regional offices, I will propose later in this paper,
perhaps naively, that there are several types of policy to be developed
by the NPB using essentially the same developmental model.
The NPB as an organization must have, as part of an ongoing regular
corporate cycle, the capacity to evaluate its work, that is, the work of
Board as an entity and the work of the staff as an entity. Through an
evaluation process, the questions of Who, What, Where, When, How and Why
must be addressed, not only to satisfy the corporate self-interest but
also to satisfy those external interests to whom the NPB is accountable
in the largest sense, i.e. the general public, Parliament, potential
parolees and those who have been paroled. In other words, in the event
that the NPB is called upon to justify the outcomes of its staff case
management work processes and Board decision-making processes, it must be
confident that it can answer the questions which will be asked. On the
other hand, the NPB may wish to make transparent, and available general
.../37
II11I1I1
II1'III11I
I
I
III11II1II1I1I
- 37 -
information reflective of these outcomes as part of an open and outreach-
ing NPB information program. A prerequisite to the conduct of any evalu -
ation process is the existence of objective standards or criteria against
which performance can be measured. Within the framework of evaluation
processes in general, one finds both audit and performance appraisal
processes. For the purposes of this report, it is essential to distin-
guish between the two processes: audit focuses on organizational work
processes; performance appraisal focuses on individuals working in a
specific position in the organization.
The evaluation process which would focus on staff case management work
processes and Board decision-making processes could be called the case
audit process. As stated earlier, the prerequisite to a case audit
process is the establishment of objective standards or criteria against
which these work processes can be measured. It appears that the case
management staff and Board members respectively, have the most intimate
knowledge of the work processes to be measured and therefore are the
persons who should and can most easily establish the standards or
criteria. In a corporate sense, it makes some sense to task the regional
case managers with the responsihility for the formulation of case manage-
ment standards or criteria or policies. In the same vein, it makes some
sense to task the Board members, full-time and temporary and community,
with the responsibility for the formulation of decision-making standards
or criteria or policies. It also seems reasonable to propose that the
Regional Director who is held accountable for the quality of case
.../38
-38 -
management outcomes and the Senior Board Member who is to a lesser degree
held accountable for the quality of Board decision-making processes
should comprise the Regional Case Audit team. To avoid conflict of
interest in auditing cases in which the SBM has voted, another Board
member could act for the SBM as necessary. A random selection of cases
would be the source for case audit purposes. The regional case audit
report containing audit results from the RD and SBM could be forwarded as
part of an annual NPB audit cycle to the Chairman and through him to the
Executive Director for review and action as appropriate. It may he
advisable to consider the establishment of a case audit committee
comprising regional and Appeal Board members and regional and HO staff
for the purposes of preparing a final audit report on cases prior to its
submission to the Chairman as part of the annual audit report of the
NPB. Once again, although the roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions of the RD and SBM are distinct they hecome linked through
corporate processes of benefit to each side of the organization.
The standards or criteria or policies governino both Board and staff
performance appraisals are well estahlished in the NPB. Performance
appraisal of staff is the responsibility of supervisory staff. Perfor-
mance appraisal of Board members is currently the responsibility of
Senior Board members in regional offices, the Chairman of the Appeal
Division and ultimately of the Chairman. It would seem that most Senior
Board Members regard appraisal of the performance of fellow Board members
as an onerous duty in light of the fact that they have no real
.../39
I
I
I
11tII1i1jII
- 39 -
hierarchical status or authority (in the technocratic organizational
sense) over their peers. In a perfect world with perfect people, peer
appraisal might work well. In the NPB it does not. A useful alternative
might he a self-appraisal process whereby each Board member assesses
his/her own performance against performance criteria or standards.
She/he then discusses the self-appraisal with the SBM who adds his/her
comments in an anecdotal format. The performance appraisal is then
forwarded to the Chairman for his review and sianature.
Of all the conditions to he satisfied prior to Board decision-making, one
of most crucial is the competence and preparedness of Board members to
undertake Roard decision-making processes. Obviously the appointment
process whereby the Governor-In-Council appoints individuals as members
of the NPB for a fixed term of office, is the only first step in ensuring
the competence of the Board; however, that process is beyond the scope
for comments of this report. Once Board members are appointed, the NPB
as an organization then assumes the responsibility for ensuring that
Board members are prepared for their work through orientation to the
corporate mandate under the Parole Act, to the corporate mission and to
their specific roles, responsibilities, duties and functions within the
NPB mandate, mission, policies, directive and procedures.
The corporate phase of this orientation of new Board members should take
place under the leadership of the Chairman with the assistance of NPB
training and development staff. The operational (regional) phase of this
.../40
I
- 40 -
orientation should take place under the leadership of the Senior Board
members with the assistance of the RD and NPB regional traininq and
development staff. The term "Operational" used in this sense refers to
the day-to-day work of Board members. As noted earlier in this report,
in order to promote informed and harmonious relationships in and between
the corporate and operational work of the NPB, Board members need to
comprehend the nature of the roles, responsibilities, duties and func-
tions of staff. This implies that during the corporate orientation phase
that the Executive Director, as Chief Operating Officer reporting to the
Chairman as Chief Executive Pfficer, has a key role to play as does the
Regional Director during the operational (regional) phase. The term
"Operational" used in this sense refers to the day-to-day work of staff
members. Full-time Board members clearly have an advantage over
Temporary and Community Board Members with respect to their ongoing
availability and thus exposure to training and development opportunities
and their ongoing and regular participation in Board decision-making
processes. However, TBM's and in a much more restricted sense, CBM's ,
have roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of equal importance
through peer accountabilities under the Parole Act. For this reason,
orientation training is crucial and possibly even more important to the
preparedness of TBM's and CBM's for undertaking Board decision-making
because the opportunities for ongoing training and development are so
limited for TBM's and almost negligible for CBM's. Once again at the
Regional Office level it appears that both the SBM and RD have distinct
but joined roles, responsibilities, duties and functions focussing on
II ,
III^rII11tI11I
1,
-41 -
ensuring the preparedness of Board members to engage in Board decision-
making processes. In an analagous fashion, staff members throughout the
NPB must be competent and prepared to undertake their work. Through the
NPB staff selection processes, competent staff should be appointed and
subsequently through the corporate and operational phases of orientation
training end ongoino training and development processes, staff should be
prepared to undertake their specific roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions. During interviews with Board and staff, the need for orienta-
tion and ongoing training and development was emphasized hy both groups.
It was also noted by staff that orientation training in a corporate sense
has been almost non-existent and training in an operational sense has
heen little better. Traditionally in the NPB like most other government
agencies, resources for training are less valued than resources for other
activities and thus more easily fall prey to resource reductions. If one
views training as an operational requisite to quality performance and
quality work outcomes, then training resources move from the expense to
the investment side of the corporate ledger. In an information-hased
organization which is labour rather than capital intensive, investment in
people through the ongoing provision of training and development opportu-
nities is more crucial to long-term productivity than investment in
capital equipment.
Of the many conditions to be satisfied prior to initiation of Board
decision-making processes, one of the most important is the presentation
by the NPB of its mandate and mission to the various "publics" to whom it
.../42
I- 42 -
is accountable. As well, the information conveyed to these "publics",
such as, the general public, offenders, Correctional Services of Canada,
the Solicitor General, other agencies and departments in the criminal
justice system, "machinery of government" agencies and Parliament - must
be in a form which makes transparent the ways and means by which the NPB
achieves its mandate and mission. This information, of both a formal and
informal nature, creates an image of the NPB and establishes performance
expectations for the NPB, in the minds of these publics. In both a
corporate and operational sense and formal and informal sense, all Board
members and all staff play roles key in the collection, analysis,
synthesis and dissemination of NPB information and in so doing, hear
responsibility, individually and collectively, for the public image of
the NPB. In terms of formal roles, responsibilities, duties and func-
tions, the Chairman, as Chief spokesperson for the NPB is assisted by
corporate communications staff at headquarters who develop and deliver
information pertinent to the mandate and mission of the NPB. In regional
offices, the Senior Board Member and Reqional Director share the roles,
responsihilities, duties and functions as regional spokespersons and are
assisted in this function by the regional correspondence and information
officer. Through the enunciation of an NPB Communications policy,
clarity in and links between the roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions of Board members and staff and HQ corporate communications
staff and regional information staff should he reinforced in order to
ensure that the information conveyed by all NPB spokespersons is
characterized by a high level of accuracy, consistency, legitimacy and
1IIt^I1
11I1Ir
1
.../43
-43-
1^III
1It1
tI
credibility. A high degree of concern about the less than ideal, if not,
negative, public image of the NPB was expressed by many Board members and
staff durinq interviews for this Review. Those individuals interviewed
in Correctional Services of Canada and the Department of the Solicitor
General have also expressed serious concerns about the neqative image of
the NPB and the need to take immediate action to improve it. Obviously,
the public image of the NPB and any other organization, is based on a
collection of individual perceptions derived from a variety of under-
standings of the mandate, mission and work of the organization. Board
members and staff of the NPB clearly should have the most intimate know-
ledge and best understanding of the mandate, mission and work of the NPB
and are then, by inference key actors or unofficial spokespersons in the
formal and informal dissemination of information pertinent to the NPB.
Therefore, it is essential that all Board members and all staff are well
informed about and committed to the mandate, mission, values and work of
the NPB if they are to convey enthusiasm and respect for their own work,
the work of their colleagues and that of the NPB as a corporate entity.
If- the opposite situation prevails, that is, uninformed and disgruntled
Board and staff members, then no amount of positive formal information
communicated about the mandate, mission and work of the NPB can overcome
the negative perception conveyed informally to the various publics by
Board members and staff. In other words, informed, committed and and
enthusiastic Board and staff members are key to the creation of a
positive internal image of the NPB and subsequently to the creation of a
positive external or public image of the NPB. No doubt there are
.../44
- 44 -
conditions, other than the ones discussed above, which must be satisfied
in order to ensure excellence in the work of Board members and staff;
however, enough has been said to convey the notions of the importance of
collaboration in work processes.
In summary, the conditions which have been presented for consideration
thus far are indicative of some of the issues of most concern expressed
by Board and staff members during interviews and discussions. Other
issues of concern will be presented under the remaining factors - e2
through #8.
Factor 12 - Facts of the Case: the circumstances, constraints, personal
information, and the likely consequences of particular deci-
sions, that when taken together describe a particular case.
Consideration of veracity of facts and the absence of infor-
mation falls within this component.
During the Board decision-making process, individual Board members
exercise their discretion and judgement in the process of determining,
selecting, sorting, prioritizing and weighing the objective facts of each
case as each Board member searches for a "just" decision pertinent to the
conditional release and reintegration of an individual offender. In
general terms, the facts of the case under Board member review are
contained in the offender's case file prepared by the CSC Case Management
staff in accordance with the standards and procedures specified in the
.../45
-45-
r11^1
tI
2
NPB-CSC Administrative Agreement. If the case file meets these standards
attested to by the NPB case manaqement staff in their review of the file,
then the conditions, prerequiste to the initiation of Board review and
decision-making processes have been satisfied. There is little evidence
that the NPB case management work processes add qualitative value to the
CSC- prepared file. In other words, there is little evidence that the NPB
case management staff carry out further analysis and synthesis of the
facts of the case within a well-defined NPB decision-making policy frame-
work and in so doing add qualitative value to the case file prior to
Board member review and decision-making. Without these well defined NP3
decision-making policies then it may not be possible for staff to carry
out specific NPB focussed analysis and synthesis of the facts of the case
without runninq the risk of further complicating the existing Board
decision-making processes. It is within the CSC incarceration-oriented2
policy framework that the facts of the case are determined, collected,
analysed, synthesized and presented by the CSC case management team. By
virtue of this framework, the perspective in which the facts of the case
are presented is more of a historic and incarceration-oriented nature
than a future and conditional release-oriented one. It is within the
recommendation to the NPB to grant or not grant a form of conditional
release that the CSC case management team provides the results of their
assessment of the future behaviour of the potential parolee based on
Incarceration-oriented is a term used by the author to include the CSC
program components of custody, care, control and correction.
.../46
I
-46 -
his/her past behaviour as an offender. In the absence of an NPB condi-
tional release-oriented policy framework for decision-making there is a
danger that the Board decision-making processes will be dominated and
constrained by the CSC policy framework, particularly during periods of
major policy change within CSC. This is not to suggest that a CSC policy
change will change the facts of the case but it can certainly impact the
perspective within which the facts are presented. The perspective within
which the facts of the case and the CSC recommendation are presented,
appears to be quite limited and thereby limiting to Board members in
their search for not only the "just" decision but also the "best" deci-
sion. In other words, the Board members, in considering the facts of the
case in terms of assessing and weighing the future risks to the potential
parolee and to society posed by continued incarceration or release under
specific conditions, may wish to explore a variety of options in order to
find the best match between the needs of the individual potential parolee
and services available and best suited to assist in his/her successful
reintegration into the community. Although the CSC case management team
has undoubtedly reviewed these options prior to making its recommenda-
tion, the Board members operating within a different perspective, i.e.
one of conditional release, express frustration in terms of limited
options for review. In the process of formulation of an NPB decision-
making policy framework some attention should be given to ensuring that
through these policies, Board members are provided a "wide-angled lens"
.../47
-47-
f1IrI1
I'ItII
I
1
or enlarged vision (within the statutory limits) for reviewing the facts
of the case in terms of the options available and pertinent to their
decision-making.
In the absence of a decision-makina policy framework and the lack of
clear evidence of further analysis and synthesis of the case file by NPB
case management staff, one must question the need for NPB case management
work processes which are essentially quantitative and corrective in
nature and useful in the event that a CSf:-prerared case file is lacking
in data and information or that the data and information provided is
incorrect. One must also question the rationale for the allocation of
NPB resources to verification of CSC-prepared files and by implication to
quality control over CSC case-preparation work processes when the NPB has
neither statutory, nor operational authority over CSC functions. If the
facts of the case are deemed to be incomplete or lacking in veracity then
it would seem that the NPB-CSC agreed upon case management standards have
not been complied with. Therefore the conditions requisite to the initi-
ation of Board decision-making processes have not been satisfied and the
Board must delay its decision-making until such times as the conditions
have been satisfied. By proceeding with its decision-making processes in
a situation when the facts of the case are less than satisfactory, the
Board members expose themselves to the risk of makinq less than high
quality decisions.
I
-48 -
Through the formulation of NPB decision-makino policies, the NPB would
have a specific conditional release-oriented policy framework within
which Board decision-making work and staff case-focussed work would be
carried out. Within this framework, the staff case management work
processes could then focus on adding qualitative value to the CSC
prepared case file. That is, the NPB case management would undertake (in
addition to existing functions) functions such as: determination of the
veracity and completeness of the facts; sorting and regrouping the facts
in accordance with the requirements of the policy framework and proce-
dures; analyzing the facts, options and recommendations within the condi-
tional release perspective of the policy framework; synthesizing or
summarizing the facts of the case; and formulating options for considera-
tion by the Board in its decision-makinq within the policy framework.
The staff work should focus on casting the CSC prepared case file into a
NPB perspective in strict accordance with the requirements of the NPB
decision-making policies and attendant procedures. Obviously the facts
of the case remain unaltered (except if incorrect) but the perspective or
framework for their interpretation and specific consideration by the
Board members would change, that is, the CSC incarceration-oriented
framework would be replaced by the NPB conditional release and reintegra-
tion of offenders oriented framework.
In the process of summarizing the facts of the case the most salient or
facts most critical to Board decision-making should be identified. With
respect to the requirements to share information of a salient nature with
.../49
1f1IrII^IIIIrt
I
- 49 -
offenders whose case is being reviewed, this NPB summary of critical
facts could provide the vehicle for the Board members to share informa-
tion with offenders. If this were to occur, then the CSC case management
team would assume full responsibility for sharing the summary of its case
preparation and recommendation with the offender prior to Board review of
the case. In other words, each organization, CSC and NPB, would assume
full responsibility for sharing with the offender the salient facts to be
considered during the NPB decision-making processes.
Factor #3 - Rules: the rules relevant to, or that "govern" a decision,
which may be found in a constitution, in legislaton, by laws,
accredited manuals, or informally drafted written rules,
decisions and precedents.
It is important to note that, as the authors of these factors have
indicated, "even when complete, formalized, carefully drafted rules are
available, they do not determine the decision outcome because discretion
still applies. Formal rules may, however, indicate that certain answers
are wrong. If the rules discreditinq a decision are found in law, the
answer is wrong in law. The determination of which rules, particularly,
precedents will he counted as relevant in a particular case may sometime
give rise to complex conceptual problems that may need to be interpreta-
ted in terms of organizational ethics, values or mission".
,.,/50
- 50 -
Clearly Board members and staff carry out their distinct but linked
roles, responsibilities, duties and functions within the confines of the
"rules". For the NPB, the "rules" are numerous and originate from
sources external and internal to the organization. For example, there
are "rules" emanating from the Canadian Constitution, more particularly,
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; "rules" originating in
statutes, such as the Parole Act, the Criminal Code of Canada, Criminal
Records Act, Penitentiary Act, Prison and Reformatories Act, Immigration
Act, Narcotic Control Act, Food and f_`rua Act, Canadian Human Rights Act,
Privacy Act, Access to Information Act; "rules" originatina in "machinery
of government" statutes such as, Financial Administration Act, Public
Service Employment Act, Public Service Staff Relations Act, Auditor
General's Act; "rules" arising from these statutes, in the form of
regulations, policies, directives and guidelines; "rules" originating in
court decisions, rulings and precedents; "rules" formulated by the NPB
pertinent to NPB work processes in the form of policies, directives,
routines and practices.
In a hierarchical sense, by enshrining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
in the Canadian Constitution, these "rules" originating in the Charter
take precedence over all other "rules", including court "rulings", and
thus reflect the ultimate value accorded to individual rights and
freedoms of all Canadians, including the rights and freedoms of offen-
ders. Implicit in the statement of these rights and freedoms in the
Constitution, is a guarantee of their protection under the rule of law.
I
1IIII
I11
-1
tI1I
I
- 51 -
As a consequence, all other "rules" governing the work processes of the
NPB must be interpreted and applied in a manner which ensures that the
outcomes of Board decision-making processes successfully and consistently
protect the rights and freedoms of individual offenders and in so doing
meet the tests of natural justice, procedural fairness and due process if
challenged by potential parolees through the NPB Appeal process and/or
the courts.
Despite the privative clause provisions of Section 23 of the Parole Act,
the Courts in general and the Federal Court in particular, has enter-
tained writs to appeal decisions of the Board under Sections 18 and 28 of
the Federal Court Act. In so doing, the Federal Court has reviewed Board
member decisions and decision-making processes using its powers of
judicial review to affirm or quash Board decisions following its determi-
nation of whether the Board acted within its statutory jurisdiction or
authority, acted fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. As a result of Federal Court rulings through judicial review
and rulings of other courts such as the Supreme Court of Canada, there is
a body of jurisprudence from which emanates revisions to existing "rules"
or new "rules" which in turn govern the decision-making processes of the
NPB. Since 1982, when the common law provisions, such as the duty to act
fairly, due process and the principles of natural justice were enshrined
in the Constitution through the provisions of the Charter of Rights and
.../52
- 52 -
Freedoms, a new body of jurisprudence has emerged as a result of appeals
under the Charter. For instance, Section 7 of the Charter entitled Legal
Rights states:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice.
In the accompanying description to this and subsequent sections contained
in A Guide for Canadians to The Charter of Riqhts and Freedoms, it is
noted that "the rights outlined in these sections spell out the basic
legal protection that will safeguard us in our dealings with the state
and its machinery of justice. They are designed to protect the indivi-
dual and to ensure simple fairness should he or she be subjected to legal
proceedings, particularly criminal cases". As a result, the Board must
ensure that the "rules", i.e. policies and procedures, governing its
decision-making processes and decisions comply with the principles
enunciated in the Charter and with the precedents established by the
courts and found in the body of jurisprudence.
In general terms, "rules" formulated by the NPB can be categorized as
those arising from "rules" pertinent to Board decision-making processes
and staff case-focussed work processes and those "rules" pertinent to NPB
corporate and operational management work processes. The NPB "rules"
.../53
IIIIItI1
IIaIII11I
II
I
IIIIIIIIIII1I
- 53 -
governing Board decision-making processes and case management processes
are enunciated in the two NPB accredited Policy and Procedures Manuals.
In an analogous fashion, the NPB "rules" governing corporate and opera-
tional management processes are enunciated in NPB personnel, administra-
tive and financial policies and procedures manuals. These latter NPB
manuals reflect the direct and specific adaptation by the NPB of Treasury
Board accredited manuals for personnel, administrative and financial
management. As an agency operating in the federal sphere of government,
the NPB has limited flexibility in the adaptation and application of the
standards or "rules" set out by "machinery of government" agencies in
accredited manuals; however, as an agency with unioue statutory responsi-
bilities in the federal sphere, the NPB has a nreat deal of flexibility
in the formulation of its case-focussed policies, directives, procedures
and practices. Historically, it has been in the area of case-focussed
formulation of policies or "rules" that the NPB has experienced difficul-
ties internally as an organization and externally as an agency within the
sphere of authority of the Solicitor General. For this reason, this
section of the Report will focus on the nature of the policy formulation
processes associated with Board decision-making and staff case-
management.
In the context of a determination-making or "deciding" agency, such as
the NPB, insulation from the political process of government which was
the raison d'être for its establishment as an arm's length agency, is
also a factor in the evolution of its policy formulation process. The
.../54
I
- 54 -
delicate balance between agency insulation from day-to-day political
control over decision-making processes and accountability within the
statutory and governmental policy framework varies amono administrative
"deciding" agencies and shifts in accordance with the nature and impact
of the many environmental factors impacting the statutory roles, respon-
sibilities, duties and functions of each agency. The status of adminis-
trative agencies in Canada, such as the NPB, as structural heretics,
means that it is neither clear nor settled how the political norms of
Parliamentary democracy and Ministerial Responsibility apply. The
resulting lack of clarity can lead to tension between the agency and the
department and Minister presumed to he responsihle for policy formula-
tion. It may be useful at this point to differentiate between two types
of policy, using definitions proposed by Amy Bartholomew in her paper
entitled, Accountability, Control and Independence: Balancing the
Requirements for Effective and Responsive Decision and Policy Making,
Correctional Law Project, Secretariat of the Solicitor General (1985).
Substantive policy ... refers to policy which is elabora-
ted in the application of an agency's mandate. Legisla-
tive, on the other hand, entails policy proposals
regarding legislative changes in the mandate ... general-
ly, substantive policy is a function of the agency,
while, generally, legislative policy is viewed as a
function of the department, sometimes in consultation
with the agency.
.../55
- 55 -
IIIIIIIEIII1II
A recent example of the NPB role in formulating policy proposals regard-
ing legislative changes is found in the work carried out by the Chairman
and Board members through the NPB Executive Committee and by staff
members working with staff of the Secretariat of the Solicitor General,
in the development and drafting of Bills C-67 and C-68, their presenta-
tion to the Solicitor General, and his proposals to Parliament. In other
words and simplistically, in terms of legislative changes to the Parole
Act, the role of the Chairman of the NPB is to propose and the role of
the Solicitor General and Parliament is to dispose.
The NPB, as a result of its day-to-day Board decision-making processes
and staff case management processes pertinent to conditional release and
reintegration of offenders, formulates substantive policy. Unlike other
"deciding" administrative aQencies, such as, Canadian Transport Commis-
sion, National Energy Board, Atomic Energy Board, Canadian Radio -
Television and Telecommunications Commission, the NPB undertakes
decision-making in accordance with the broad general criteria set out in
the Parole Act. This, then, is the primary function of the NPB and
formulation of substantive policy is a secondary function or a by-product
of the first function. In contrast, the aforementioned agencies have, as
their primary function, set out in their statutes, formulation of policy
and as a secondary function, decision-making within these policies. It
would seem from the recent experiences associated with amendments to the
Parole Act, that there is general acceptance within the federal sphere
and in particular by the Solicitor General as the Minister responsible,
.../56
I
- 56 -
of the NPB 's role in legislative policy formulation. It is less certain
based on past experience in the NPB, that there is general acceptance of
the NPB's role in substantive policy making, that is, formulation of
policies or "rules" within which Board members make decisions pertinent
to conditional release and reintegration of offenders. This uncertainty
spills over into the formulation of policies or "rules" governing staff
in their case management work processes. This is not to imply, that
there is uncertainty concerning the why or the need for the policies and
procedures contained in the NPB Policy and Procedures Manual hut rather
uncertainty in the context of what constitutes the parameters of NPB
substantive policy formulation and when, where, how and who should formu-
late this substantive policy.
It is my view that the role of the NPB in substantive policy matters
evolves and revolves around the interpretation of the substantive sec-
tions of the Parole Act and its regulations and arises from the day -to-
day Board decision-making processes and supportive staff case-management
processes. It is through this Board interpretation of the Parole Act and
Regulations as it applies to individual cases coming to Board members for
decision that the identification of the need for NPB policies and proce-
dures and subsequent development of such is given effect. It is also
within this interpretation of the NPB "rules" or policies that the Board
members exercise their individual discretion. That is, individual Board
members decide which "rules" or policies are applicable in each individi-
al case prior to making decisions on the case. Within Bartholomew's
.../57
II
I
IIIIIIIII
IIII
-57 -
definition of substantive policy, it would appear that the NPB should
formulate policy only to the extent that it is required to do so to
fulfill its primary function of decision-makino under the substantive
sections of the Parole Act and Regulations. As an example, the Parole
Act does not direct the Board to grant a specific form of conditional
release given a specific set of circumstances. Rather Section 10 (1)(a)
of the Parole Act directs the attention of Board members to consider
three (3) broadly-stated criteria in making their decisions on individual
cases. According to Bartholomew:
While some discretion is probably necessary with regard
to Parole (Board) decisions, it is submitted that the
existing enormous discretion of (the) Parole Board in
both granting and revoking matters constitutes a lack of
accountability.
She further suggests that the "lack of guidelines (for NPB decision-
making) translates into an enormous discretionary power and lack of
accountability". Bartholomew, in defining guidelines as substantive
policies or rules, suggests that a lack of guidelines creates a policy
vacuum which the NPB must fill through substantive policy formulation,
i.e. formulation of decision-making guidelines, rules or policies. As
suggested earlier in this report, there clearly is a need for NPB
decision-making policies not for the purpose of limiting Board member's
discretion but rather to protect their discretion. Within this unique
.../58
- 58 -
NPB policy or "rules" framework, Board members would consider the objec-
tive facts of each individual case, explore the options available and
exercise their best judgement in reaching a decision. An NPB decision-
making policy framework is a prerequisite to the development of an NPB
case management policy framework within which the current staff case
management work processes can be qualitatively enhanced.
The experience of some Board members in the recent past attests to the
fact that there is a fine line between the role of the rhairman and the
NPB in policy making arising from the substantive sections of the Parole
Act and the role of the Minister responsible for policy making arising
from the stance of the government-of-the-day on a wide variety of
issues. For example, Section 5.2 of the NPB Policy and Procedures Manual
states that "The policy of the Board is to use the power to discharge
parole restrictively". This statement raises the question of whether the
NPB is actually proposing a stance on how parole will be administered not
in the procedural sense of how, but rather in the broad government-of-
the-day political policy stance, without providing a rationale or answer-
ing why this stance is appropriate. One interpretation of this policy
would indicate that the intent of the policy statement is to convey the
notion that in situations in which the weighing of the facts of the case
results in equal weighing of a yes or no decision, then the Board member
will be guided by this policy to decide to not grant discharge from
parole to the individual on parole whose case is under review. In the
absence of an NPB decision-making policy framework within which policies
.../59
IIII1IIIIIIIItI
III
-59 -
are interpreted as interdependent and part of a whole set, then a single
policy such as the one discussed above will be interpreted from a
multiplicity of individual perspectives by Board members, NPB staff, CSC
staff, offenders and other persons and groups who have specific interests
to be satisfied. Consistency in policy interpretation not only rein-
forces the rationale for the policy but also for the discretion resulting
from the application of the policy. By providing a rationale for the
policy, and relating it directly to its decision-making processes, the
NPB brings the policy back into the substantive policy making sphere of
the NPD and out of the government stance or political policy making
sphere of the Minister responsible. As noted earlier, policy formulation
can be simplistically distinguished from procedure development by
assuming that policy addresses the question of What and Why and proce-
dures address the questions of What, Who, When, Where and How. In the
policy example just cited, the issue was not one of distinguishing
between policy and procedure hut rather one of distinguishing between
suhstantive and political or oovernment-of-the-day policy making, and
thereby useful in identifying the sphere of policy making authority for
the NPB.
It is a tribute to the historic and ongoing respect for and understanding
of the separate spheres of policy-makinq that there has been no attempt
by the Solicitor General nor by the departmental staff to influence or
interfere with individual Board member decision-making. That is, the
individual discretion of Board members in making decisions on individual
.../60
- 60 -
cases has been preserved and insulated from direct and indirect political
influence and control exercised through the imposition of governmental
policy stances on NPB decision-making processes. In situations in which
there have been problems associated with the outcomes of NPB decision-
making processes, then the problems were the subject of discussion
between the NPB Chairman and the Solicitor General after Board decisions
had been made and for the purpose of making changes in their respective
policy-making spheres, either to the legislative "rules" or substantive
"rules" governing future outcomes of Board decision-making processes. As
an example, the legislative "rules" change brought about by passage of
Bills C-67 and C-68 u nder the authority of the Solicitor General addres-
sed some of the problems experienced by Board members in their decision-
making processes in the past and will shape the outcomes of future Board
decision-making through the formulation and application of new substan-
tive NPB "rules" or policies and procedures.
Currently, the "rules" qoverning the decision-making processes of the
Appeal Division of the NPB are more of a procedural and practice nature
than of a policy due to the minimalist statements regarding the appellate
or Re-Examination of Board decisions function of the NPB in Section 22 of
the Regulations under the Parole Act. There is little disagreement among
Board members vis à vis the importance of an appellate function within
the NPB, that is, to ensure that the outcomes of Board decision-making
processes, i.e. the decisions and the processes themselves, comply with
NPB "rules" or policies and procedures and thereby ensure that the
IIIIII1IIIIIII
III
- 61 -
I
IIIIIIIIIIIII
offender or potential parolee has been treated fairly and in accordance
with the principles of fundamental justice. Although there appears to he
a general understanding and agreement with this appellate function, as
stated here, there is not, as yet, however a clearly enunciated statement
of purpose or mandate nor understanding nor agreement among Board members
vis à vis, the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of Appeal
Board members. There is as well little agreement among Regional Board
members with the notion of the Appeal Division havino the "riaht" to
substitute its own decision for the decision of the Pegional Board in the
first instance.
As noted earlier, Section 22 of the Regulations does not define the
purpose or mandate of the Appeal Division within the statutory framework
of the NPB. It may well be that the search for a purpose or mandate
should focus on the "rules" emanating from the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and from the body of legal jurisprudence based on court
"rulings". Such a focus might yield a statement of purpose such as: The
mandate of the Appeal Division is to ensure that Board decision-making
processes and decisions comply with NPB policies and procedures, the
principles enunciated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with the
court rulings and precedents contained in the body of jurisprudence
applicable to the NPB. With such a purpose clearly stated as Board
policy or preferably as a provision within the Parole Act, then there is
a statutory reference point for the procedure-like conditions under which
an offender seeks relief from a board decision under Section 22 of the
.../62
I
- 62 -
Regulations. Over time, through the decisions of the Appeal Division on
appeals from Regional Board decisions, a body of precedents or NPB
jurisprudence could be developed which would be instrumental in ensuring
high quality in Board decisions and decision-making processes. Put
simply, the NPB through its appellate function would ensure that
offenders or potential parolees are treated in accordance with the
principles of fundamental justice as reflected in the policies and proce-
dures of the NPB and in a manner consistent and equitable with other
offenders in similar circumstances within the jurisdiction of the NPB. A
L'-product of this in-house body of jurisprudence would be to minimize
the need for offenders to appeal Reoional Board decisions over time. In
the instances in which a request for re-examination of Board decision
were made, the potential for further appeal to the Courts for relief from
the Board decision would be minimized. Although it is premature to
surmise from the recent court rulings that the Courts look favourably on
the existence of an appellate function within the NPB, it is probably
safe to suggest that the Courts would look even more favourably on the
Appeal Division if it had a clearly enunciated mandate and exercised
well-defined roles, responsibilities, duties and functions within the
overall mission of the NPB.
In the process of defining the purpose or mandate of the Appeal Division,
great care must be taken to link this purpose through the NPB mission
statement to the purpose and mandate of the Regional Divisions of the
Board, while at the same time clarifying the differences between their
.../63
II
IIIIIIIIIIII
- 63 -
mandates or purposes. It is crucial to ongoing positive organizational
relationships between Appeal Division Board members and Regional Board
members that their respective roles, responsibilities, duties and func-
tions are clarified and linked through the NPB statement of mission.
Currently, the Appeal Division conducts its decision-making processes and
makes decisions within the existing policy and procedures designed
primarily for first-instance Regional Board decision-making and not for
Re-Examination of Board decisions.
In the absence of a well-defined mandate, the development of an Appeal-
oriented policy framework within which the Appeal Board members review
cases and make their decisions, cannot be undertaken. In other words,
the NPB cannot promulgate its own "rules" or policies for Board
decision-making on appeals until it addresses the question - Why do we
need an Appeal Division? or What business are we in? In order to deal
with current requests from offenders for re-examination of Board deci-
sions, the Appeal Division has devised procedures appropriate to the
provisions in Section 22 of the Regulations. In so doing, the Appeal
Division has addressed the who, what, how, when and where questions. In
my view, at the moment, the Appeal Board members cannot propose an answer
to the Why question without running the risk of having their actions
construed as self-serving in the short term and risking problems of
credibility and legitimacy vis à vis the appellate function within the
Board in the long-term. This appears to be an opportune time for the NPB
.../64
I
-64 -
as corporate entity under the leadership of the Chairman to undertake the
task of clarifying and enunciating the mandate, roles, responsibilities,
duties and functions of the Appeal Division Board members and in so doing
clarify and establish the links and relationships between Appeal Division
and Regional Divisions of the Board. The processes of clarification of
NPB mission and organizational purpose and structure currently underway
presents an opportunity for action of compelling proportions.
Without Appeal Board decision-making policies there can be no development
of appropriate staff case management policies or standards against which
either Board members or staff can evaluate their work processes. To
date, the clearest enunciation of the perspective within which the
Appeal Board members carry out their review has been proffered by the
Chairperson of the Appeal Division. It is her view that the Regional
Board members in arriving at their decision on the individual case in the
first instance, review the facts of the case in terms of the offender's
past and future behaviour. During the Appeal Division review of the case
under appeal by an offender seeking relief from the Board decision in the
first instance, the Appeal Board members review the case in terms of
assessing the compliance of Regional Board decision-making processes and
decision with the "rules" or policies and procedures governing NPB
decision-making, including compliance with the principles of natural
justice, due process and the duty to act fairly. Simplistically, the
Board of the first instance reviews the offender and the Board of the
second instance reviews the decision and the decision-making process
.../65
- 65 -
which generated the decision on the case. This perspective is indicative
of the separate and distinct nature of the roles, responsibilities,
duties and functions of Appeal Board members and by implication of staff
members. It also demonstrates the need for a distinct appeal-oriented
decision-making policy framework within which Appeal Board and staff
members can carry out their respective work processes.
Currently, the Professional Standards Committee of the NPB is the vehicle
through which evaluation of the Board decision-making processes at the
Regional and Appeal Board levels is undertaken. In the absence of
decision-making policy frameworks and policies or standards against which
Regional and Appeal Roard decision-making processes and staff case
management processes can be evaluated, then there appears to he little
value in attemptinq to evaluate these work processes. Any attempt to
evaluate these work processes under these conditions will be fraught with
suspicion vis à vis the motives and focus of the evaluation and the
outcomes of the evaluation process will be tainted by perceived lack of
credibility and absence of legitimacy.
As proposed in the discussion under Factor ik1 - Conditions, a case audit
function carried out under the leadership of the SBM and RD would provide
ongoing opportunities for Regional Board members and staff to evaluate
their respective case-focussed work processes on a regular basis. In an
analogous fashion, in the Appeal Division, under the leadership of the
Chairperson of the Appeal Division and the staff Divisional Director, the
.../66
- 66 -
case-focussed work processes of Board and staff would he evaluated
through a regular and ongoing case audit function with the results
reported to the Chairman of the NPB as part of the annual NPB audit
cycle. The establishment of these case audit functions in the P,eaional
and Appeal Divisions of the NPB would replace some of the functions
currently undertaken by the Professional Standards Committee of the
Board. Those remainina functions which focus on the professional conduct
of individual Board members appear to be more appropriately aligned with
the Board member performance appraisal processes under the authority of
the Chairman.
The "rules" governing the Appeal Division Board members and staff case
management processes pertinent to making recommendations to the Solicitor
General and Governor-In-Council, respectively, on requests for relief
through the granting of pardons originate in the Criminal Records Act and
for the granting of clemency emanate from the Royal Prerogative of
Mercy. The NPB "rules" derived from the Criminal Records and the Royal
Prerogative of Mercy, are comprehensive and are of both a policy and of a
procedural nature, and are compiled in the "other" red Policy and Proce-
dures Manual. The work processes associated with requests for clemency
and pardons, carried out by staff during the preparation of the case,
focus on collecting, analysing and synthesizing the facts of the case
prior to its submission to the Appeal Board members for their recommenda-
tion to either the Solicitor General or the Governor-In-Council. To a
large degree, the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of Appeal
.../67
IIIIIIIIIIII1IIIIII
- 67 -
Board members pertinent to recommending relief to an individual from
continued incarceration throue clemency and relief from a criminal
record through a pardon, are not well known in the NPB and risk not being
recognized as being of equal importance to their other roles, responsi-
bilities, duties and functions under the Parole Act.
The same situation prevails for staff members whose work processes are c-
rucial to the clemency and pardons mandate of the NPB. Within the NPB as
an organizational entity, there is less focus on Board and staff work
processes governed by the "rules" originatina in the Criminal Records Act
and the Royal Prerogative of Mercy than those work processes aoverned by
the "rules" originating in the Parole Act. One must question whether
less focus on the clemency and pardons work processes is indicative of
less value accorded to these statutory responsibilities within the NPB or
whether less focus is indicative of less public interest and visibility
associated with carrying out the roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions of Board members and staff.
In any event, the Appeal Division Board members in order to carry out
their roles, responsibilities, duties and functions under the "rules"
originating in the Parole Act, the Criminal Records Act and the Royal
Prerogative of Mercy, clearly need to be assisted by staff case manage-
ment work processes pertinent to each statutory authority. To be more
specific, the Appeal Division, as one of six Divisions of the NPB and the
one division with unique statutory responsibilities should have a Board
.../68
- 68 -
and staff structure analagous in many respects to that of a Regional
Division of the NPB. This analogy extends to proposing that the staff
case management work processes pertinent to support of Board decision-
making on appeals, clemency and pardons requests should focus on adding
quality to each case through a holistic rather than piece-work approach
to the case file. In other words, each staff member should be assigned a
number of case files to which she/he adds quality through careful
analysis and synthesis of the facts of the case, resulting in a summary
and recommendations to the Board members for their consideration and
decision. In a later section of this Report, a more detailed proposal on
changes to the existing organizational structure of the Appeal Division
under a new name, that is, the Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division,
will be presented for consideration.
In order to withstand the scrutiny by all the publics with interests in
the outcomes and processes of Board decision-making vis à vis conditional
release, it is essential that the internal Board processes pertinent to
"rules" formulation and interpretation be clarified. The legitimacy and
credibility of the NPB is brought into question by repeated promises for
fast action followed by a rationale for not delivering on the promises.
This approach provides an open invitation for a take-over of the substan-
tive policy "rules" formulation function by persons or agencies who can
and will deliver on their promises.
.../69
II
II1IIIII
IIII1II
- 69 -
IIIIIIIIII
I
For this reason, it is imperative that the NPB policy formulation and
interpretation processes be and be seen to be ones characterized by
clarity, direction and quality of "products". As noted earlier, Board
members and staff in Regional Offices and Appeal, Clemency and Pardon
Division whose work is case-focussed are daily required to interpret and
apply existing "rules" found in NPB policies and procedures. As the
environment within which they work chanqes, Board and staff identify the
need for revisions and/or new "rules". This does not mean that the
"rules" should or do change constantly but rather that the scope for
their interpretation must be broad enough to allow for their application
in ways appropriate to reqional or Appeal Board conditions, that is,
conditions which impact the individual offender whose case is under
review. The scope for interpretation must, on the other hand, be narrow
enough to ensure that the interpretation and application of the "rules"
is construed to be fair, consistent and equitable with the treatment
accorded by the NPB to other offenders in similar circumstances. Should
it become apparent through the case audit process and through other
ongoing NPB monitoring processes carried out by Senior Board members and
Regional Directors, Chairman of Appeal I)ivision and Divisional Director,
Senior Management Committee, Executive Committee, Chairman's Office, that
difficulties exist with a "rule" or policy or procedure, then corrective
action should quickly be taken. There are many possibilities for action
depending obviously on the nature of the problem with the "rule". For
instance, the corrective action may require; an affirmation of the intent
and scope for interpretation of the existing policy; a redefinition of
...,/70
I
-70 -
the scope of the policy; a revision of the policy to reflect a new
intent; the deletion of a policy; the formulation of a new policy to meet
the requirements of a changed environment arising from a court ruling or
amended legislation or changed policy in CSC.
The choice and nature of the corrective action in turn should determine
who should be tasked with the action. In the recent past, the determina-
tion of who should be involved in the interpretation of NPB policies and
procedures has been frauoht with lack of clarity and lack of consisten-
cy. As a result, Board members and staff have sought interpretation of
policy from several sources - the Secretary of the Board, Legal Counsel,
Chairman, Vice-Cheirman, Board and staff in other Regions and policy
analysts at Headquarters. Despite the best intentions of everyone
involved in asking and giving advice, the process has been time-consuming
and inefficient and the outcomes have frequently been contradictory and
ineffective. To a large extent, the process of determining who the key
actors are and who should be tasked with the revision and/or formulation
of new policy has been characterized by a lack of clarity and consisten-
cy. Clearly, the ultimate statutory authority for policy formulation
rests with the Chairman and the Executive Committee of the NPB. It is
also evident that the Chairman and the Executive Committee need the
support of legal counsel and policy analysts to undertake the preparatory
work entailed in policy formulation and the procedures which flow from
such. Most policy formulation processes require data and information
derived from a variety of sources, such as statutes, jurisprudence,
.../71
- 71 -
IIIIIIItI1t1I
socio-economic indicators and statistics, policies emanatina from other
departments and agencies within the Criminal Justice System, other
agencies and departments in the federal, provincial and municipal spheres
of government, reports and studies from within government and academic
institutions and community-based voluntary or private organizations
providing services to offenders. This list does not imply a never-ending
lengthy examination and eventual dissertation based on months of work by
many policy formulators. The list is intended to convey the notion that
the policy formulation process within the NPB should involve Board and
staff working together as a team to identify the policy issue, determine
the action to be taken, take the action appropriate to the issue, approve
the outcome of the action and apply the outcome, be it a new policy or a
new interpretation of an existing policy. Clearly, staff are best
prepared to undertake the preparatory work involved in policy formula-
tion, that is, legal counsel, policy analysts at HQ and case management
staff in the regions and in the Appeal Division. Once the new policy has
been approved in final draft form by the Chairman it seems appropriate
that it then go to Senior Manaqement Committee in final draft form for
discussion prior to going to Executive Committee for final approval and
promulgation as an NPB policy to be included in the NPB accredited or
approved Policy Manual. Once approved, the policy becomes one of the
"rules" under which the NPB carries out its work, is available to all
interested publics and is interpreted, applied and governs Board
decision-making processes and decisions. It seems reasonable to suggest
that the final word on interpretation of existing Board policy rests with
.../72
I
- 72 -
the Chairman and/or his delegate in the sense of the person to whom he
delegates this function. In this way, one person in the NPB is respon-
sible for conveying the NPB corporate interpretation of the "rules" which
govern Board decision-making. These suggestions are not intended to
provide a panacea for policy formulation and interpretation in the NPB
but rather a tentative roadmap to a temporary utopia. Policy by its
nature is somewhat like the Cheshire Cat in that it comes into focus
momentarily and disappears just as one grasps it, only to leave a smile
or maybe a grimace behind.
Factor #4 - Morality: first, the moral principles held by the organiza-
tion or the decision maker are potentially relevant in any
application of administrative discretionary justice; and
second, the persons or parties affected, together with an
account of how they are affected by a potential decision are
subject to consideration by the decision maker.
Through the participation of Board members and staff in the development
of the statement of mission and Guiding ° rinciples, the corporate purpose
and values of the NPB as an organization are being enunciated and as a
result will be made transparent to the various publics served by the NPB.
It is through the application of these corporate values in day-to-day
work processes that Board members and staff give life to the corporate
mission, principles and standards of the NPB. It is also through the
.../73
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
-73 -
"living out" of these corporate values that individual Board members and
staff may find themselves in situations in which personal values do not
correspond with corporate values. Clearly, as a member of the NPB as a
corporate entity one is obligated to enunciate corporate values. Hope-
fully, there will be few situations in which one must make a choice
between personal and corporate values in carrying out one 's work within
the NPB. If such a situation occurs, then it will become crucial that
the organization converts the situation into an opportunity to clarify
corporate values and to assist the individual to reconcile personal
values with corporate values through a better understanding of each. The
enunciation of NPB Mission and Principles is not directed towards
uniformity of personal values and beliefs of Board members and staff but
rather towards conformity between public statements of NPB corporate
Mission and Principles and public actions of Board members and staff.
Without ascribing intent to the Chairman under whose leadership the
consultation of Board members and staff is being undertaken, it may be
useful to consider the expressed intent of a similar process being
undertaken by the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPPC).
In the preamble to the Statement of Principles Regarding the Conduct of
Public Employees, IPAC notes:
We, the members of the Institute, intend that this
Statement of Principles enhance the performance of our
members by encouraging high standards of conduct among
them, whether they work in the federal, provincial or
.../74
- 74 -
local government sectors. We intend also that this
Statement inform the general public, politicians and the
rtner+s media of the principles and standards which should
guide official behaviour. We believe that high standards
of conduct among government officials are central to the
maintenance of public trust and confidence in govern-
ment. We helieve also that there is widespread agreement
In Canada's public administration community on certain
principles and standards of proper conduct. Neverthe-
less, we recognize that public employees experience
conflicts of values or of loyalties. In such cases, the
principles in this Statement provide valuable guidance.
We recognize further that on occasion difficult decisions
facing public employees can ultimately be resolved only
by resorting to individual conscience.
The principles expressed in this Statement are expressed
in terms of what should be done as opposed to what shall
or must be done. No mechanism is provided for their
enforcement.
In order to ensure that corporate values or principles transcend and
hopefully encompass the personal values of Board and staff, the NPB
should avoid creating organizational structures which provide opportuni-
ties for Board and staff members to conduct their deliberations in the
.../75
IIIII1IIIIIIIIIIII
-75 -
context of competing personal values rather than in the context of being
guided by corporate values. For example, committee structures or project
structures established by the NPB should have clearly defined mandates,
time frames and terms of reference designed to facilitate the work of
members within the context of the Mission and Guiding Principles. The
multi-vote decision-making processes of the Board clearly provide
barriers to personal values in decision-making and by inference favour
adherence to corporate values.
In general terms, the societal values embedded in the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act, the Access
to Information Act, the Parole Act, the Criminal Records Act, the
Criminal Code and other statutes contribute and to some extent dominate
the corporate values of the NPB and in some instances also contribute to
conflict between these corporate values and the personal values held by
Board members and staff. In particular, the potential exists for a
conflict between personal values and those corporate values derived from
the Charter, in situations when an individual Board and/or staff member
perceives that the person or parties affected hy a Board decision will be
accorded "unfair" treatment. That is, the "effect" of the Board decision
will result in the offender or potential parolee being accorded
"unearned" rewards or treatment that is better than that available to
non-offenders or law abiding citizens. As noted earlier, it is in situa-
tions such as this where conflict between personal and corporate values
is highlighted, that time and effort should be spent in clarifying both
.../76
- 76 -
corporate and personal values by the individual(s) concerned. It may
well be, that discussion of these values will reveal little disagreement
about the efficacy of either set of values but rather reveals a problem
with existing social policy and an imbalance in the social justice
framework within which the NPB operates. The issue then becomes one
which should be referred to the Chairman for action and/or referral to
the elected officials whose role is to formulate social policy.
Factor #5 - Procedures: guidelines intended to preserve the integrity
of the discretionary decision-making process. A public
administrative decision-making system must make provisions
for conducting orderly investigations; it must have rules of
evidence that guarantee rational procedures. The rule of law
requires some form of due process, that is, a process
reasonably designed to consider the interests of persons
affected by the potential decision in ways compatible with
the rule of law. For example, such a process would be
independent and impartial, so that no person can judge in his
or her case and the process must be fair and open and not
prejudiced by pressure groups or public clamour. The proce-
dures, or the precepts of natural justice, are to ensure that
the procedures of public administrative decision-making
system are impartially and regularly maintained.
.../77
II1III1IiIIIIIIIiI1
- 77 -
Without question, the NPB procedures pertinent to Board decision-makinq
processes should have embedded in them and reflect in their application
the precepts of natural or fundamental justice and the doctrine of fair-
ness espoused in the Charter and by the courts. A document which
provides the key to ensuring that NPB procedures do in fact reflect these
precepts or principles is one prepared by the Legal Services Division of
the NPB, entitled, The Duty to Act F airly, Third Edition, September 1 986.
This excellent document, althounh used in Board member orientation
training, appears not to be widely circulated or known by staff members
and may not be readily available to some Temporary or Community Board
members. Suffice to say at this point, that this document should be a
handbook for Board and staff members whose work is case-focussed because
of the clear and comprehensive explanation of the sources and evolution
of the duty to act fairly and the many aspects of procedural fairness
offered by this document. For example, on page 1 of the document it is
noted that:
Procedural fairness is a fluid concept which may demand
different things in different contexts. It is often
difficult to determine with precision what is the amount
of fairness that a given situation requires: for
example, is the inmate entitled to an oral hearing or is
it sufficient that he be provided with the opportunity
to make representations in writing? H owever, it is
.../78
- 78 -
generally recognized that the importance of the proce-
dural safeguards in a certain set of circumstances
increases with the importance of the consequences that
decision will have on the individual it relates to.
Finally, it should be remembered that the courts are not
normally concerned with whether or not the decision made
by the State is good or bad unless it is clearly arbi-
trary. What they are concerned with is whether the
person affected by the decision was treated fairly in
the process of arriving at the decision.
As noted earlier in this Report, the "rules" governing Board decision-
making processes apply to the formulation of NPB policies and proce-
dures. A review of the NPB Policy and Procedures Manual governing Board
decision-making processes under the provisions of the Parole Act leads
one to conclude that the formulation of procedures pertinent to each of
the provisions is relatively complete, except for those emanating from
the new provisions under Bills C-67 and C-68. However, this Manual
appears to lack statements of policy pertinent to the provisions of the
Statute and from which the procedures should naturally flow. It is
urgent that this policy deficit, described in detail in earlier sections
of this Report, be remedied in such a way that the policy statements
provide the rationale for the procedures. That is, the policies should
make transparent the concern of the NPB for procedural fairness and
.../79
1
I
IItIIIIIIIIII
- 79 -
fundamental justice in its dealings with the person or parties affected
by Board decision-making processes and the decision. In contrast, the
NPB Policy and Procedures Manual governing Board decision-making proces-
ses under the Criminal Records Act and the Royal Prerogative of Mero/'
leadina to recommendations to the Solicitor General or the Governor-In-
Council on requests for relief through the granting of a Pardon or
Clemency, appears to be relatively complete in both a policy and proce-
dural sense. A review of this Manual leads one to comment not only on
its apparent completeness but also on the clarity of the policies and
attendant procedures and the guidance provided to Loard members and staff
by the examples and criteria associated with the statements of policy and
procedures. Apparently, the two Manuals were formulated within the same
time frame hut evolved quite differently with respect to format and use.
The latter manual is not widely circulated nor read by Board members and
staff whose work is not focussed on Clemency and Pardons cases. Prior to
any reformulation of the NPB Parole Policy ard Procedures Manual, it
would be important to consider adopting the format used in the other red
P & P Manual pertinent to Clemency and Pardons.
Once the decision-making policy frameworks pertinent to the provisions of
the Parole Act are formulated and the procedural safeguards emanating
from the Charter and the body of legal jurisprudence are completely in
place, then one should expect that the NPB decision-making systems can he
easily described and maintained and that the Board decisions would he
characterized by impartiality, fairness, appropriateness, timeliness and
...,/80
I
- 80 -
consistency, all characteristics of high quality. Obviously, there will
always be cases in which Board members using their best judgement make
decisions outside the NPB policy and procedural frameworks, that is, on
an exceptional basis. In such cases, clearly, there must be an emphasis
on procedural safeguards, the reference for which should continue to be
found in the Policy and Procedures Manual.
If and when an idyllic policy and procedures status is attained, it seems
reasonable to suggest that case-management staff working within the
well-defined policies and procedures could be delegated authority under
Section 16(1) of the Parole Act, to make some purely administrative
decisions of a non-release, non-revocation, non-detention nature. The
purpose of this delegation would be to relieve Board members of a small
part of the volume of their increasingly complex workload. Such purely
administrative decisions could be those pertinent to changes in the Terms
and Conditions of Parole proposed by CSC Parole Supervisory staff and
pertinent to an individual who has been nranted parole by the NPB and is
currently under CSC supervision. Although the discussion of NPB policies
and procedures has focussed on those leading to good decisions and
decision-making processes, it is important to remember that these "rules"
governing the work processes of Board and staff serve other purposes as
well. According to C.C. Edge, Chairman of the National Energy Board in
his paper entitled, Rules of Procedure:
.../81
- 81 -
IIIIII1
IIIIItII
Rules are important because they describe the methods of
organizing and conducting business, they define rights
and duties, they provide information which makes it
possible to participate in the process, they provide an
understanding of how decisions are made, they promote
orderliness and fair play, they act as a check on the
individuals involved in the process - including decision
nakers, and, generally, they assist an organization in
accomplishing the work for which it was designed. This
list of reasons for having rules is not new. It was
gleaned, in fact, from Robert's Rules of Order, which
underlines my point that rules have as much to do with
good business as law.
In conclusion, the "rules" in terms of policies and procedures selected
for application by Board and staff will vary from one case to another as
the circumstances demand; however, the duty to act fairly in their
application remains constant as should the adherence to the spirit of the
NPB Mission and Guidin3 Principles.
Factor #6 - Options : all of the alternative decision outcomes available.
It is in this component that the major conclusions are
reached.
.../82
I
- 82 -
As was noted on page 44 of this Report, in the discussion of Board and
staff case-focussed work processes, Board members have expressed frustra-
tion with the limited options presented to them in the CSC recommendation
in the case under review and above all, the limited time available within
which to explore these options with the offender and CSC staff during a
Panel Hearing for Parole. In order to fully exercise their unique statu-
tory roles, responsibilities, duties and functions, Board members should
have available to them at least ten days prior to the date of decision-
making, several options in which all the reasonable alternative decision
outcomes are outlined. These options prepared by NPB case management
staff should be based on the analysis and synthesis of the conditions and
facts of the case and formulated within the framework of NPB decision-
making policies and procedures, the body of NPB and legal jurisprudence
and practice, the Mission and Guiding Principles. Above all, the options
should reflect the NPB orientation towards release and reintegration of
offenders weighed against the risks associated with the release of the
individual offender reflected in the CSC recommendation. Consideration
has been given to the issue of replacing CSC-oriented values with NPB-
oriented values as a result of this approach to case management. Given
the unique statutory role of the NPB, it seems reasonable and desirable
that the values of the NPB as an organization should predominate in Board
decision-making and staff case management processes. If they do not, one
must question the need for a unique body such as the NPB, given the
contemporary notions of a flat sentencing approach to conditional
release. By having sufficient time to consider the objective facts of
.../83
II11IIII1I1 1
IIIIIIII
- 83 -
.../84
the case and the options flowing from such, Board members may discover
other options and in so doing fully exercise their creativity, judgement
and discretion. The time currently spent during Panel Hearings in
exploring in a somewhat random fashion possible outcomes of the single
CSC recommendation could become more focussed on presenting one or more
well developed preferred options and exploring the possible outcomes of
such decision alternatives with the potential parolee and CSC case super-
visory staff. At the very least, the options would have been well
researched by NPB case management staff prior to the Panel Hearing with
the result that Board members would begin the decision-makinq process on
a knowledgeable, confident and credible hasis. The quality, credibility
and legitimacy of the decision-making process in the eyes of the
offender, CSC staff and the various publics with interests in the out-
comes rests to a large extent on the quality, credibility and legitimacy
of the options considered. The quality of the outcomes or decisions
taken by the Board, can be enhanced by the level of preparedness of the
Board members to undertake their work and the level of preparedness of
staff to undertake their work in support of Board decision-making. As
was emphasized earlier in this Report under Factor #1 - Conditions which
must satisfied, orientation training and ongoing professional development
of Board members and staff is crucial to the attainment of a high level
of preparedness. In addition, Board members and staff need to create and
utilize opportunities to engage in discussions of substantial issues
pertinent to Parole, Clemency and Pardons, conditions related to release
of offenders and their reintegration as law abiding citizens. In order
- 84 -
to facilitate these discussions, the NPB as a corporate entity should
seek opportunities whereby Board members and staff can participate as NPB
representatives in committees or other fora within the criminal justice
system and in commun:hy'-based settings. Currently, there appears to be a
fairly urgent need to "green the desert" of personal and professional
development within the NPP. The "greening of this desert" can only
enhance the confidence, knowledge and skills of Board and staff and
thereby contrihute to their creativity, enthusiasm for and quality of
their work outcomes, that is, options and decisions pertinent to condi-
tional release and reintegration of offenders.
Factor #7 - Implications: those matters that may affect the implementa-
tion of the decision once it is made and which fall outside
the control of the decision makers once the decision is
made. The implications cannot, by definition, be completely
assessed before the decision is made. They may sometimes be
important in explaining what went wrong.
The implications of Board decisions on conditional release of offenders
and the risks associated with such weigh heavily not only on the Board
members making the actual decision on an individual offender but also on
staff whose work has focussed on case preparation prior to the decision
and on staff whose work is focussed on case supervision or monitoring the
supervision of the parolee after the decision to release has been made.
As an observer at several NPB Panel Hearings, I was struck by the
.../85
1IiII1II1ItrAII1IIi
- 85 -
tIt1IIfIII1II
overriding concern of Board members in trying to ensure that the implica-
tions of their decisions would be positive for both the potential parolee
and the community should a decision to release be made. This concern,
though to a lesser degree, was also evident in cases where the potential
parolee was denied a form of conditional release or had his parole
revoked. It appeared that this concern, in large part, was due to the
many unknowns associated with the decisions particularly in the determi-
nation of risk to society and to the offender, but also was due to the
lack of direct control and authority over the persons responsible for the
implementation of the decision. In other words, once the Board decides
to grant a form of conditional release to a potential parolee, then the
onus of responsibility for ensuring that the general or special terms and
conditions of the particular form of release falls outside the sphere of
control of the NPB and on the case supervisory staff of CSC.
Throughout the discussions and interviews with Board members and staff
leading to this Report, the issue of supervision of offenders on parole
by CSC staff or their surrogates evoked intense emotion, conveyed a sense
of nostalgia and loss and was depicted by many as a historic turning
point for the worse in the affairs of the NPB as a corporate entity. To
a large extent, the rationale underlying the amendments to the Parole Act
in 1974 which led to the separation of the then National Parole Service
from the NPB is not well known or understood. In light of the then-
current theories relevant to administrative tribunals such as the NPB,
the rationale for separation as a means of preserving the independent
.../86
11
-86 -
sphere of administrative decision-making and protecting the impartiality
of judgement of the decision-makers from the influence of day-to-day
operational issues, made sense and probably still does theoretically. In
terms of a cost/benefit analysis, the separation is costly in terms of
the concerns, time and effort spent by Board members and staff in ensur-
ing quality in case preparation and in case supervision by both the NPB
and CSC in the context of the NPB-CSC Administrative Agreement. The
benefits are less apparent in terms of the original rationale of preserv-
ing the integrity of the Board decision-making processes and decisions,
particularly in light of the growing dependence of the NPB on the
largesse of CSC for resources. Clearly, there are corporate benefits,
not only in terms of resources but also in terms of knowledge, expertise,
research and training to be derived from closer operational relationships
with CSC and other departments and agencies within the criminal justice
system and federal sphere of government. Within the current context of
ever increasing demands for accountability and fiscal constraint, the act
of balancing independence in decision-making and interdependence in
operational matters will undoubtedly become a high wire act if not a high
art form.
At this point, it may be worth noting that a sense of "hankering after"
the mythical good old days, that is, a coveting of the case supervision
function of the former Parole Service still exists in the NPB despite the
separation of the Service from the NPB in the mid-70's. The fact that
there is no provision for NPB supervision of parolees in the amended
.../87
- 87 -
IIIII1IIIItII1I
Parole Act, no mention of an NPB role in supervision in the NPB-CSC
Administrative Agreement nor reference to any NPB authority in the NPB
Policy and Procedures Manual does not dispel the dream. As an outsider
reading Section 105-5(2.2) of the NPB P & P Manual which states that,
"The Parole Service is responsible for providing supervision and for
assisting the individual in readjustino to life in the community", one is
struck by the continued official use of the term Parole Service several
years after it became known as the Correctional Service. It may become
necessary for the NPB to not only update this term but also to state
unequivocally that the NPB does not have a role nor responsibilities,
duties or functions pertinent to direct supervision of paroled
offenders. It may also be useful as a reminder that Section 4.1 of the
Penitentiary Act states that:
4.1 The portion of the staff of the National Parole
Board known as the National Parole Service shall be under
the control and management of the Commissioner who in
addition, to his duties under section 4, is responsible
for the preparation of cases of parole and the supervi-
sion of inmates to whom parole has been granted or who
have been released on mandatory supervision pursuant to
the Parole Act.
.../88
e
- 88 -
As noted earlier, the increasing volume, complexity, visibility, public
scrutiny and demands for accountability of Board decision-making proces-
ses and decisions places enormous time pressures and demands for exper-
tise on Board members. There is little time durina a Panel Hearing or
for that matter during office-based decision-making, for Board members to
consider a range of decision options each with a set of implications
arising from the specific terms and conditions of the particular form of
release granted. One way to relieve some of these pressures is to
enhance the nature and quality of staff support prior to, durina and
after Board decision-making. As proposed earlier and described in more
detail later in this Report, staff case-management work processes should
be changed and upgraded. Currently, the staff case-management work
processes focus on redressing deficits in the case files prepared by CSC
case preparation staff, on notifying the offender, CSC and other inter-
ested parties as to the decision of the Board on the case reviewed, on
completing and issuing release certificates and on monitoring the
progress of the parolee through review of CSC supervising reports. To
some extent, the organization and focus of the staff case management work
processes is modeled on and is reminiscent of the way in which the former
Parole Service organized its work. Without statutory authority for case
preparation or supervision of the paroled offender, it seems reasonable
to propose that these two terms are not useful in describing the work of
NPB case management staff particularly in view of the proposals for
formulating a new NPB decision-making policy framework and NPB case
management policy framework within which staff case-focussed work can be
.../89
- 89 -
I
IIt11IrI11I1II
qualitatively enhanced. Despite the lack of statutory authority for
direct supervision an implied responsibility and accountability for such
is found in Section 105-5(4.1) of the NPB P & P Manual.
4.1 The Board has the authority to set any special
conditions it deems desirable relating to supervision,
however, it is not the Board's intention to interfere
with the judgement of the Parole Service as to what
methods of supervision are used, but rather to ensure
that the authority it exercises in establishing the broad
guidelines for supervision is in appropriate balance with
the responsibility the Board must bear if failures in
supervisory actions or procedures lead to failures in the
parole process.
With this implied responsibility in mind, it will be important in the
formulation of the Board decision-making policy framework and the staff
case-management policy framework to clearly define their respective
roles, responsibilities, duties and functions with respect to the NPB
role in monitoring the progress of the parolee under the direct super-
vision of CSC staff and by inference monitor the implications of the
Board decision.
Factor #8 - Strategies: practical proposals developed to assist with the
successful implementation of the decision proposed.
.../90
I
- 90 -
Several factors militate against in-depth discussion and development by
Board members as a group, of strategies designed to assist with the
successful implementation of the Board's decision on the case of an
individual offender. Paramount among these factors is the requirement to
conduct these discussions on strategies in the presence of the potential
parolee during the time allotted to the Panel Hearing. Procedural fair-
ness requires that the potential parolee be given an opportunity to hear
(and understand) the facts of the case and still other associated factors
being considered by the Board in their deliberations leading to their
decision. Procedural fairness also requires that Poard members provide
the potential parolee with an opportunity to present his/her side of the
case. The length of time spent by Board members, CSC case management
staff and the potential parolee in exchanging, sharing and disclosing
information necessarily limits the time available for the exploration of
decision options, implications and strategies for successful reintegra-
tion of the offender in the community, if granted release. As noted
earlier in the Report, an enhanced role for NPB case management staff
would include the development of a variety of strategies for implementa-
tion pertinent to each of the decision options for consideration by the
Board, including strategies arising from the CSC recommendation. With
this information included in the NPB prepared case summary and with an
NPB Hearing Officer available to advise on technical matters arising from
the case file, then the time currently available for exploration of the
strategies pertinent to the Board decision may be adequate. It may also
mean that Board members cognizant of the technical matters pertinent to
1IrIIIIitIaIAII1111I
- 91 -
their decision, such as, the availability of community services and
treatment which are appropriate to the needs of the particular offender
under review, may have to spend less time during the Hearing on these
matters and thus have more time to devote to exploring with the offender
and thereby assuring themselves that the offender's plans for reintegra-
tion as a law-abiding citizen are realistic. For experienced Board
members and staff, appropriate strategies quickly become apparent because
of their knowledge of issues associated with local institutional and
community services and to a lesser extent their knowledge of broader
correctional law and parole issues which impact decision-making. Through
frequent contacts between full-time Board members, NPB staff, CSC staff
and other persons involved in the criminal justice system on a variety or
matters outside the NPB decision-making process, a band of trust, confi-
dence, credibility, legitimacy and knowledge is built up vis à vis the
work of the NPB. It is crucial that Temporary Board members be included
as much as possible during such discussions with CSC staff and with other
persons working in the CJS, given the increasing involvement of TBM's as
decision-makers and their equal status with full-time Board members under
the Parole Act. Clearly, current resource constraints place serious
limitations on the creation of opportunities for Board member contact
outside the decision-making process; however, it seems reasonable to
sugoest that the SBM and RD as the leadership team in a Regional Office
should devise strategies whereby full-time and temporary Board members
and staff can avail themselves of existing opportunities for meeting CSC
officials, judges, police, offenders, voluntary and private sector groups
.../92
- 92 -
involved in providing community services for offenders and/or with
interests specific to the work of the NPB. Through these contacts, Board
members and staff have the opportunity to convey the Mandate, Mission,
Guiding Principles, distinct but joint roles, responsibilities, duties
and functions of Board members and staff and in so doing, convey a corpo-
rate image of the NPB. They also have the opportunity to gather informa-
tion and data on a variety of parole-related issues and social justice
issues which can serve as a basis for identifying and thereby proposing
questions which could be researched and analysed by a team of NPB region-
al and headquarters staff either for policy formulation purposes or as a
basis for better informed decision-making or as a basis for strategic
planning of a corporate nature or for myriad other corporate purposes.
At this time, within the NPB, there is a developing capacity to identify,
collect, analyse, synthesize and disseminate data and information to
support Board decision-making and staff case-management processes. With
the development of a common data base, i.e. the Automated Offender
Management System (OMS), for use by NPB and CSC, in addition to the
existing capabilities of the NPB Automated Parole Information System
(APIS), the NPB should have increased capacity to identify, collect and
disseminate vital or "tombstone" data pertinent to each offender whose
case is under review by the Board. Clearly, it will not be possible or
even desirable to attempt to automate the judgemental aspects of Board
decision-making or staff case work requiring analysis and synthesis of
the facts contained in the case file. It also will not be possible to
.../93
IIIIIIIIIa1ItI1
II
- 93 -
process electronically much of the data and information pertinent to
issues of a policy, procedural, research and strategic nature arising
from Board and staff case-focussed work. It is and should continue to be
possible to electronically process much of the quantitative data perti-
nent to these issues during the data and information collection,
analysis, synthesis and dissemination phases of an issue-based project.
The credibility of a project will depend on the validity of the project
methodology, including the validity of the statistical methods used and
the veracity of the data, and on the perceived usefulness of the project
outcomes in terms of telling the organization what it is doing, how well
it is doing and what needs to be changed to improve performance. In this
respect, the NPB as an organization needs to realign its current statis-
tical functions in order to include those staff whose work focusses on
statistical analysis within the proposed staff project management teams
at headquarters. In this way, the capacity for statistical analysis will
become integral to the researching, in an institutional or corporate
sense, of any NPB approved issue of a pOlicy, procedure or strategic
nature. As discussed earlier in this Report, the identification, collec-
tion and preliminary analysis and synthesis of these issues should be
undertaken by Regional/Divisional Board and staff members and forwarded
to the Chairman who then decides whether more in-depth analysis and
synthesis of the issues should be undertaken. If the decision is posi-
tive then a project and project team is established to carry out the work
in terms of the short and/or long term strategic action plan of the NPB.
Currently, the strategic planning process within the NPB tends to focus
.../94
- 94 -
on corporate resource management. It would appear that the Chairman's
proposed Strategic Planning process which has as its first phase, the
enunciation of NPB Mission and Guiding Principles has the potential for
weaving together the strands of NPB case-focussed strategies and corpo-
rate management strategies and in so doing, create a tapestry illustra-
tive of the statutory and operational environment within which the NPB
carries out its Mission.
.../95
1IIIIII11
III1II1I1I
-95-
I Section IV - The National Parole Board as an Organizational Structure
Options for Change
IIIttI1IIIIIt
Consistent with the purpose of the Organizational Review the options and
recommendations for chanqe in this section of the Report will focus on
the specified senior staff positions, that is, those positions currently
reporting to the Executive Director. In addition and as a result of data
and information reported on as Key Findings in the previous section of
this Report, options and recommendations will be proposed for those posi-
tions reportinq to the Executive Director and to the specified senior
staff positions. Proposals for changes in current reporting relation-
ships implies chanqes in existing organizational structures. Despite the
constraints imposed by the purpose of the Organizational Review, strong
suggestions and indeed proposals for change have been made in the
previous section of this Report with respect to: day-to-day working
relationships and shared leadership roles between Senior Board memhers
and Regional Directors; operational and corporate roles, responsibili-
ties, duties and functions of Board members and staff; work processes of
Board members and staff; policy and procedure formulation, implementation
and interpretation; the need for a mandate of the Appeal Division; public
image, information and education, Board and staff orientation training
and professional development; evaluation processes including audit and
performance appraisal; information systems and services. During the
discussion of options and recommendations presented in this section, many
of these proposals for change will be reiterated but some may not. For
.../96
I
- 96 -
this reason, it is essential that the reader become conversant with all
sections of the Report in order to fully comprehend the proposals and
options for change recommended.
Key Options and Recommendations
In all organizations, the mix of personalities working within the
constraints of organizational structures requires that organizational
relationships, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions are
consciously attended to, renewed and readjusted in accordance with the
requirements of the work and of those undertaking the work. In the NPB,
the rapidly changing nature of the work environment and the evolutionary
nature of the statutory authorities governing the work itself has compli-
cated these ongoing renewal and readjustment processes and has placed in
question the efficacy of some of the organizational relationships in
regional and headquarter's settings. To attempt to depict existing
organizational relationships and to propose changes to these solely
through a graphic representation of such in organizational charts is a
risky business open to many interpretations. Clearly, the graphic
representation of organizational relationships must be supplemented by
individual position descriptions linked one to another and by a job
classification scheme in which there is contiguity of positions. In this
section of the Report, the options and recommendations for change, as
.../97
- 97 -
t
IItt1rIaI111I
depicted in organizational charts will be based on the proposals for
change in organizational relationships discussed in the previous section
of the Report.
Appended to the Work Plan for the Organizational Review is a series of
eight (8) questions to be addressed in the Organizational Review. (See
Appendix A). In the process of answering these questions, options and
recommendations pertinent to organizational relationships and structures
will he proposed.
Question #l: Should the Executive Director's span of direct control be
maintained, increased or reduced? If the latter, should
some responsibilities be allocated to another existing
position, or a new position?
The Executive Director, as Chief Operating Officer of the NPB reporting
to the Chairman, as Chief Executive Officer has corporate responsi-
bilities as a member of the executive staff of the organization. He also
has operational responsibilities focussing on the day-to-day management
of the work of NPB staff throughout the organization. If one assumes
that time is a scarce and therefore costly resource to be managed, then
the allocation of time to these distinct but linked responsibilities
becomes crucial not only to the well-being of the Executive Director but
also to the organization as a corporate entity. As a rule of thumb, 20%
of the Executive Director's time should be devoted to his corporate
.../98
r
- 98 -
roles, responsibilities, duties and functions and 80% of his time should
be devoted to his operational roles, responsibilities, duties and func-
tions. Within the time available to carry out his operational responsi-
bilities, the issue of span of control becomes crucial. For instance, if
the number of senior staff reporting to the Executive Director is such
that more than 80% of his time is devoted to operational responsibili-
ties, then obviously the time availahle to devote to corporate responsi-
bilities is reduced. Over time, such an imhalance jeopardizes the
effectiveness and efficiency with which both corporate and operational
responsibilities are carried out. Ultimately, the efficacy of the
organizational relationships with the Chairman and with the senior staff
are impaired.
In an information-based organization such as the NPB, the span of control
issue, though important as a classic workload indicator, should also he
viewed as an indicator of the sources and types of data and information
required by each position in the organization. In other words, the span
of control of the Executive Director's position should identify the key
positions reporting to the Executive Director, as chief operating
officer, through which data, information and analyses flow to enable him
to effectively and efficiently carry out his corporate and operational
roles, responsibilities, duties and functions. In turn, within the
context of his corporate responsibilities, the Executive Director selects
and reformulates those data, information and analyses appropriate to his
.../99
1rII1a
1,'II11^tI1Ia
-99 -
requirements and those of the Chairman and which enable each to effec-
tively and efficiently carry out his corporate roles, responsibilities,
duties and functions.
Historically and currently, the volume and complexity of the work carried
out by Board members and staff within the NPB is reflected in a highly
differentiated organizational structure. That is, the volume and tasks
associated with carrying out this work is divided and sub-divided among
individuals whose knowledoe, skills and expertise are and should he
matched to their roles, responsibilities, duties and functions identified
with individual position descriptions and position classifications. In
instances in which the volume is such that more than one individual is
required to carry out the same task, then the position description and
classification should be the same. Otherwise, the positions should be
differentiated or distinct from one another in accordance with the
different competencies (knowledge, skills and expertise) required to
carry out the tasks in an efficient and effective manner. In a simplis-
tic sense, one should be able to differentiate the work requirements
flowino from the Executive Director's position description into the
number and types of staff positions essential to assist him to effective-
ly and efficiently carry out his corporate and operational roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions. One should also be able to trace
the links between the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of
.../100
I- 100 -
each staff position back to those of the Executive Director and through
the Executive Director to the Chairman and the statutory authorities
governing the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of each.
In the same vein, one should be able to assess the value added by the
work flowing from the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of
each staff position within the organization. In an information-based
organization, the value added by each position can be assessed in terms
of the quantity and quality of the data and information collected,
analysed, synthesised and disseminated by the position. In other words,
one may question the value added to a document, be it a case file or an
annual report, by each position which handles it. One may question the
number of positions required to carry out the volume of work at each
level and also the number of levels of specialization required to produce
the final product in a form useful to the intended recipient, be it the
Executive Director or Board Memhers, or the Chairman. In using a value-
added approach to the assessment of organizational effectiveness and
efficiency, one must establish qualitative indicators in addition to the
usual quantitative indicators reflective of the volume of work carried
out within a specific time-frame by a specific number of individuals,
e.g. the number of keystrokes per minute per individual word processing
operator. Qualitative indicators should be reflective of the levels of
complexity and the appropriateness of the mix of general and specialized
knowledge, skills and expertise or competencies required to resolve a
specific problem, address an issue, answer a question, prepare a cabinet
1Ie
IIri1rI
II
I
-101 -
document or a MYOP or a case file pertinent to the requirements of Board
member decision-making. In a differentiated organization, the organiza-
tional relationships can either contribute to or diminish the overall
quality of the end products of the work of individuals or of groups and
in some instances can delay or prevent their production. For this
reason, qualitative indicators must also reflect the nature of the work
environment and organizational culture within which individuals work
separately and/or as a team to achieve specific organizational goals
consistent with the Mission and Guiding Principles.
With reference to the specific question under consideration, it appears
that the current span of control of the Executive Director is too great
in that he has only limited and fragmented time to focus on his overall
corporate responsibilities as Chief Operating Officer (C00) of the NPR
reporting to the Chairman as CEO. Paradoxically, the Executive Director
devotes more of his time to dealing with issues arising from the work of
headquarter's corporate management staff than to dealing with issues
arising from the work of regional operational management staff. On a
day-to-day operational basis, the Executive Director has most frequent
contact with the five (5) senior HQ managers and the least frequent
contact with the five (5) regional managers. Geographic proximity of the
former group and distance of the latter readily account for the frequency
of contact. Over time, such a wide disparity in frequency of contact
causes wide disparity in the interpretation, quality and quantity of
data, information and analyses flowing to and from the Executive Director
.../102
- 102 -
and both groups. The reality of most decentralized organizations, such
as the NPB, is that most regional managers become more self-reliant than
those working at the central office or head-quarters. This self-reliance
though ideal in terms of exercising delegated authority and operational
responsibility and placing limited demands on the Executive Director's
time is less than ideal with respect to exercising ongoing corporate
responsibilities.
On the other hand, HQ managers, at times, appears to he overly dependant
on the Executive Director for confirming their day-to-day operational
decisions. This upward delegation of authority contributes to the over-
load and fragmentation of the time and daily schedule of the Executive
Director. As is the case with regional managers, HQ managers must
distinguish between their corporate and operational roles, responsibili-
ties, duties and functions. The same rule of thumb should apply to all
senior managers, 20% of their time devoted to their corporate responsi-
bilities and 805r' of their time devoted to operational responsibilities.
In the case of HQ based managers their operational responsibilities focus
mainly on work of a corporate nature; however, each HQ manager has to
consider the nature and work of his responsibility centre within the
context of the whole organization or as part of the corporate entity of
the NPB. By confining the demands on the Executive Director's time to
those matters arising from insoluble operational problems and those
issues of a corporate nature, the HQ managers could contribute to the
freeing up of the Executive Director to devote more time to his corporate
1t^ArI11I1
I
I
.../103
- 103 -
1I
I
II1i1ttiIr1II
responsibilities. Self-reliant regional managers working within a frame-
work of well-defined operational policies, procedures and routines must
have well-defined operational roles, responsibilities, duties and func-
tions. If they are expected to provide data and information which is
timely, accurate, relevant and in a format useful to the Executive
Director for corporate purposes, regional managers must also have well-
defined corporate roles, responsibilities, duties and functions. Wide
variations in interpretation of corporate and operational policies,
procedures and routines in corporate and operational roles, responsibili-
ties, duties and functions will ultimately lead to wide variations in
interpretation of reoional data and information rendering it useless for
comparative purposes. These variations not only undermine the capacity
of the Executive Director to utilize operational data and information in
order to effectively and efficiently manage the key corporate aspects of
his work but ultimately undermines the credibility and authority of all
managers. At the present time, the capacity of regional managers to
comply with corporate demands and requests is diminishing due to the
increasing demands on their time made by the increasing volume and
complexity of Board decision-making processes. As a result, there is a
danger that the Executive Director could become distanced from the
case-focussed work and the data, information and analyses flowing more
such. In the worst scenario, the Executive Director would he out of
touch with the primary work of the NPB.
.../104
i
II
Ii
-104 -
The operational roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of HQ-hased
managers (with the exception of Clemency and Pardons) revolve around
planning, organizing, controlling and evaluating the work of staff
involved in corporate operations such as finance, pay and benefits,
accommodation, budget, travel and removal, personnel administration,
records management, staff relations, classification, job evaluation,
official languages, translation services, ATIP and Privacy, training,
corporate planning, policy formulation, research, statistics, evaluation
and audit, special projects and information systems and services. One of
the crucial operational responsibilities of regional and headquarters
managers is to maintain ongoing day-to-day operational relationships
between each other and between their respective staff. Much of the
operational work of HQ or corporate staff is dependant upon the receipt
of timely, accurate and relevant data, information and analyses arising
the operational work of regional or case-focussed staff. In addition,
data, information and analyses of a corporate nature arising from the
work of regional managers and work of HQ managers is collected, compiled
and formatted by HQ managers is carrying out their operational and
corporate responsibilities. Clearly, the operational and corporate
roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of regional and HQ managers
are distinct and complementary. In terms of organizational structures,
the functional units whose work is case-focussed and is directly
supportive of Board decision-making processes are decentralized into five
regional offices and one headquarters division. The non-case-focussed
functional units located at headquarters should have as their primary
.../105
- 105 -
I
1r1^li1ï1I
Ir
function the overall corporate support of the case-focussed units of the
organization. It is clearly more efficient and hopefully more effective
as well to centrally locate the overall corporate functions of the NPB in
Ottawa than to decentralize such to each reqional and divisional office.
Currently the eleven (11) positions reporting to the Executive Director
are:
Administrative Assistant
Five Regional Directors - Atlantic, Québec, Ontario
Prairies, Pacific
Director General, HQ Operations
Director, Finance and Administration
Secretary to the Board
Director, Personnel and Official Languages
Director, Corporate Planning and Management Practices
Of the three options proposed in the question, it is recommended that the
Executive Director's span of direct control be reduced from eleven (11)
to eight (8) positions reporting directly to him.
The proposed eight (8) positions reporting directly to the Executive
Director are:
.../106
I
-106 -
Administrative Assistant
Five Regional Directors - Atlantic, Québec, Ontario,
Prairies, Pacific
Divisional Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardon Division
Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services
Of these eight (8) positions, two (2) positions are new. These are the
positions: Divisional Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division
and Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services. Both
positions are located at Headquarters.
In response to the second part of Question #1 posed at the outset, three
options have been considered. The first option, that is, no change in
existing reportino relationships to the Executive Director, has been
argued against during the discussion of span of control issues resulting
in the above recommendation to reduce the span of control of the
Executive Director from eleven to eight positions. However, considera-
tion should be given to the realities of geographic proximity. The
potential for the Executive Director to meet on a one-to-one basis with
each Regional Director more frequently and more regularly is limited by
financial constraints; however, the potential for meeting with the
Divisional Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardon Division is only limited
by an agreed upon schedule for meetings and capacity to exercise dele-
gated operational authority. On the other hand, if HQ managers exercise
their deleoated operational authority more rigorously and limit their
.../107
- 107 -
111III1
1Ir1iI
demands on the Executive Director's time to scheduled meetings and
insoluble (at their level) operational problems then the Executive
Director, may have sufficient time to devote to both his corporate and
operational responsibilities even with ten (10) senior staff reporting to
him directly. (See Chart 2, Recommendation #1, Option #2).
The second option considered, that is, allocation of some responsibili-
ties from the Executive Director's position to another existing position,
was rejected for several reasons. One of the prime reasons for rejection
was that the framework in which changes in organizational structures have
been proposed is one in which there are case-focussed functional units
and non-case-focussed or corporate functional units, the latter providing
support to the former. In other words, the existing framework for
reporting relationships and within which existing roles, responsibili-
ties, duties and functions are currently carried out, has been changed.
As a consequence, if this proposal for chanae in the conceptual framework
for the organization is accepted, then the case-focussed orqanizational
units should have a direct reporting relationship with the Executive
Director. Given the recommendation for reduced span of control, the most
loqical existing position to which some responsibilities could he trans-
ferred is the position of Director General, HQ operations. The current
responsibilities associated with this position include case-focussed
responsibilities for Clemency and Pardons as well as other operational
responsibilities for APIS, Planning and Analysis, Statistics, ATIP and
.../108
I
- 108 -
Privacy and liaison with other agencies in the Solicitor General's
sphere. The proposed framework would require reallocation of these
operational responsibilities to other positions and the creation of a new
position to replace this position. The existing positions of Director,
HQ Programs, and EDP Systems Manager, reporting directly to this existing
position of Director General, HQ Operations are currently vacant. The
Director, Planning and Analysis reporting directly to the DG position is
currently on sick leave. As a result the DG has had to assume the opera-
tional responsibilities of these three positions. For these reasons, the
option of transferring some of the Executive Director's responsibilities
to the existing position of Director General, HQ Operations was
rejected. As well, the Regional Directors, without exception, expressed
great anxiety at the prospect of not reporting directly to the Chief
Operating Officer given their leadership roles in regional offices.
Assuming that the proposed conceptual framework is accepted, in which the
organizational structure for staff would include case-focussed functional
units and non-case-focussed or corporate functional units, the latter
providing support to the former, the third option considered, that is,
allocation of responsibilities to a new position, is the preferred
option. In this option, day-to-day operational management of the corpo-
rate systems and services of the NPB would be allocated to the new posi-
tion of Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services. The
existing position of Director General, HQ Operations would be eliminated
and replaced by the new position.
ItI
I1!Iti1
1tt1I
.../109
-109-
The new position, Director General, Corporate Management Systems and
Services, would be in the jargon of the trade, a corporate "roll-up"
position. In other words, through the four (4) senior staff positions
reporting to this position, (See Chart 3, Recommendations el, Option #3),
data, information and analyses flowing from the corporate work of case-
focussed and corporate HQ staff would be identified, collected, analysed,
synthesized and formatted under the overall direction of the Director
General prior to its dissemination to the Executive Director. In an
operational sense, the Director General would be responsible for the
overall direction with respect to planning, organizing, controlling and
evaluating the work of the four (4) senior staff positions reporting to
this position. These positions are:
Director, Human Resource Services
Director, Administrative and Financial Services
Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services
Director, Information Systems and Services
The focus of the position of Director General should be the coordination
of the ongoing development, maintenance and evaluation of management
systems and services through which data and information flow,pertinent to
the internal requirements of the NPB as a corporate entity and to the
external requirements placed on the NPB as an agency operating within the
federal sphere of government. As the complexity in the external environ-
ment increases, so must the functions within the internal organization in
.../110
- 110 -
order to buffer the rate and impact of the external changes on the
internal work processes. This is reflected in further differentiation of
the functions and in the increase in numbers of positions, specialization
of roles, responsibilities and duties, in requirements for environmental
scanning, collection, analysis, synthesis and dissemination of data and
information and a greater focus on coordination of the outcomes of work
processes throughout an organization. In the RPQ, this means that the
roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of the position of Director
General should be focussed yet broad enough to ensure that the require-
ments for corporate action on a wide variety of issues flowing from the
Chairman to the Executive Director to the Director General are met in an
effective and efficient manner. In other words, the quality, timeliness
and coordination of the outcomes of corporate work processes are primary
responsibilities of this position.
The four positions reporting to the Director General are responsible for
the provision of the operational systems and services pertinent to the
management of corporate requirements. If the requirements were less
complex, then the organizational differentiation into less than four
positions would be recommended.
For instance, consideration has been given to the combination of the
functions to the positions of Director, Human Resource Services and
Director, Administrative and Financial Services into the position of
Director, Resource Management Services. (See Chart 4, Recommendation #1,
1IIt1ri^^i
A'IItt1
r
r
11
I1I^1
I1I
Option A.) The organizational requirements for very different and
specialized knowledge, skills and expertise within each of these organi-
zational units militates against such a combination. If one further
considers that the NPB comprises two distinct organizations, that of
Board and staff, each of which is decentralized into multiple differenti-
ated organizational units, then the degree of specialization becomes more
apparent. The major advantage or benefit to be derived from the combina-
tion would be one of greater coordination. Given the focus on coordina-
tion in the Director General's position, then there is little benefit to
he derived from such a combination particularly when weighed against the
potential of losing the specialized knowledge associated with each
position.
With each of these two positions but most particularly with that of the
Director, Human Resource Services, there are and will continue to be
tasks of a confidential nature which will require that the Director have
direct access to the Executive Director and/or the Chairman on an as-
needed-basis. Since most of these confidential matters are of a personal
and security nature, the option of having the position of Director, Human
Resource Services report directly to the Executive Director has been
considered. (See Chart 5, Recommendation #1, Option #5). Should this
option become the preferred option for action, then the span of control
for the Executive Director would be increased from the recommended eight
(8) positions to nine (9). It would then be difficult to resist a
similar rationale for having the position of Director, Administrative and
-112 -
Financial Services report directly to the Executive Director. Should
this rationale prevail, then clearly there would be no need for the posi-
tion of Director General with a focus on coordination of the outcomes of
the corporate work of the remaining two positions of Director,
Development Corporate Systems and Services and Director, Information
Systems and Services. As a result, the recommendation for reducing the
Executive Director's span of control from the existing eleven (11)
positions to eight (8) would be nullified despite the earlier rationale
for it. In fact, the Executive Director's span of control would be
maintained at the existing level of eleven (11) positions (See Chart 2,
Recommendation #1, Option #2) but would differ in that two (2) of the
positions currently reporting to him, that is, the Director General, HQ
Operations and Secretary to the Board (See Chart 1, Recommendation #1,
Option #1) would be replaced by the two positions, Director, Appeal,
Clemency and Pardons and Director, Information Systems and Services.
Having considered the five options depicted in the Organizational Charts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Option #3 is the preferred option (See Chart 3,
Recommendation #1, Option #3).
It is recommended that the eight (8) positions reporting directly to the
position of Executive Director be:
Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services
Regional Director, Atlantic Region
Regional Director, Québec Region
.../113
I - 113 -
Regional Director, Ontario Region
Regional Director, Prairies Region
Regional Director, Pacific Region
Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division
Administrative Assistant
II
ItII1I
r1iI
The position of Secretary to the Board would no longer report to the
Executive Director. The roles, responsibi].ities, duties and functions
associated with this position would be transferred to the Office of the
Chairman and re-allocated to a position(s) within the organizational
structure reporting to the Chairman.
It is recommended that the position of Director General, Corporate
Management Systems and Services be established and that the primary
responsibility for planning, orqanizing, coordinating, controlling and
evaluating of corporate systems and services be allocated to this
position.
It is recommended that the five (5) positions reporting directly to the
position of Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services
be:
Director, Fluman Resource Services
Director, Administrative and Financial Services
Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services
1
-114 -
Information
HO Programs
Director, Information Systems and Services
Secretary
As noted earlier, the existing position of Director General, HQ, Opera-
tions would be eliminated. The roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions associated with this position would be allocated to the new
position of Director,
Development Corporate
Systems and Services.
Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division, Director,
Systems and Services and Director,
The existing positions of Director,
and of Director, Planning and Analysis would be eliminated with the
roles, responsibilities, duties and functions allocated to the Director,
Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division, Chairman's Office and to the
Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services. The Access to
Information and Privacy unit would be transferred to the Office of the
Chairman.
Three options were considered with respect to the position of Director,
Human Resources Services. The first option, depicted in Chart 6, Recom-
mendation #1, Option #1, was merely to retitle the existing position, of
Director, Personnel and Official Languages and to retain the five (5)
existing positions reporting to the Director. These are:
Chief, Personnel, Official Languages, Audit and Policy
Chief, Staff Relations and Human Resources
Chief, Personnel Operations
.../115
IWIir^t^I1Ic^1
- 115 -
Co-ordinator, Official Languages
Secretary to the Director
During the period covered by this Review several changes have already
taken place in this functional unit: the current Director is in an
acting position seconded from his position as Director, HQ Operations;
the official Director, is on assignment seconded to the Director of
Communications; the position description and title of the Chief,
Personnel, Official Languages, Audit and Policy have been revised; the
position, Co-ordinator, Official Languages is being eliminated effective
March 31, 1987. In other words, the first option is of doubtful validity
for the present and for the future.
The second option considered, depicted in Chart 7, Recommendation #1,
Option #2, includes the retitling of the existing position of Director,
the retention of four (4) of the existing five (5) positions, the elimi-
nation of the position of Coordinator, Official Languages and the
addition of a professional development and training unit.
The five (5) positions reporting directly to the position of Director,
Human Resource Services would be:
Chief, Personnel, Official Languages, Audit and Policy
Chief, Staff Relations and Human Resources
Chief, Personnel Operations
I
- 116 -
Professional Development Training Unit
Secretary
One must question the use of the title of Chief, Personnel Official
Languages, Audit and Policy, given that there are no staff reporting to
this position. The functions flowing from the position are however, not
in question. The other two positions of Chief, Staff Relations and Human
Resources and Chief Personnel Operations appear to be essential to the
NPB Personnel functions and appear to he appropriately supported by
junior level staff. The lack of corporate attention to and need for
orientation training and professional development of Board members and
staff, normally a function of a Personnel unit, provides the rationale
for the transfer of the existing Professional Standards and Development
unit currently reporting to the Secretary of the Board, to a new report-
ing relationship to the Director, Human Resource Services Division. In
general terms, the primary functions associated with the Professional
Development Training Unit should include the coordination of the develop-
ment of an NPB policy on orientation training and development for Board
members and staff, using the policy development model suggested in
Section III of this Report; the coordination and development of training
and development approaches, program and materials appropriate to the
orientation, competency development and career mobility of Board members
and staff, using as a model, a team approach with regionally-based
professional development and public education officers proposed earlier
in this Report. It is essential that the Head of this Professional
I1I1iI^^tI11
I111I1I
-117 -
I
à
Development and Training Unit have a very good knowledge of the work
processes of Board members and staff throughout the NPB. It is also
essential that the functions of this position be closely aligned with the
existing human resources functions associated with the Chief, Staff
Relations and Human Resources in order to tie together human resources
planning and delivery of these resources through training and development
activities for Board members and staff. Should this option be the
accepted option, a review of the classifications of the positions report-
ing to the Director, Human Resource Services should he undertaken to
ensure that there is equity in classification between the positions
(excluding the position of Secretary) given the span of control of each
and the complexity of the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions
of each. It is not my intent, to discuss options or make recommendations
on positions flowing from these four (4) positions.
The third option considered, as depicted in Chart 8, Recommendation el,
Option #3, flows from the option depicted in Chart 5, Recommendation #1,
Option #5. The only difference between this third option and the second
option just discussed would be in the reporting relationship of the
Director, Human Resource Services. In this option, the Director, Human
Resource Services would report directly to the Executive Director. As
noted earlier, although it is essential that the Director, Human Resource
Services continue to have direct access to the Executive Director and/or
to the Chairman on confidential personnel matters, it is not essential
.../118
- 118 -
for the exercise of his other operational and corporate responsibilities
that he have direct access on a day-to-day basis. For this reason, this
option is not the preferred one.
The preferred option is Option #2 depicted in Chart 7.
It is recommended that the position of Director, Human Resources Services
report directly to the Director General, Corporate Management Systems and
Services and that the five (5) positions reporting to the Director, Human
Resource Services be:
Chief, Personnel, Official Languages, Audit and Policy
Chief, Staff Relations and Human Resources
Chief, Personnel Operations
Professional Development Unit
Secretary
Three options were considered with respect to the position of Director,
Administrative and Financial Services. The first option, depicted in
Chart 9, Recommendation #1, Option #1, was to retitle the existing
position, Director, Administration and Finance and to retain the three
(3) positions reporting to the Director. These are:
I
w
tII
1II
I
11
I
- 119 -
Chief, Financial Management
Chief, Administrative Services
Secretary
The major change in the responsibilities of these positions reporting to
the Director during the period of the Review has been the retirement of
the Security Officer and the subsequent assumption of these responsibili-
ties by the Director. An examination of the two positions of Chief,
indicates that there is a great imbalance in the responsibilities of the
two positions. The Chief, Financial Management has overall responsibili-
ty for five (5) staff whereas the Chief, Administrative Services has
overall responsibility for twenty-eight (28) staff with quite disparate
and specialized functions, i.e. accommodation, removal and transfer of
Board members and staff, records management, word processing, mail and
messenger services, materiel management, including acquisition, mainte-
nance and control of office furniture, EDP hardware and software. This
imbalance in allocation of functions is accompanied by differentiation of
work processes and tasks into several more organizational levels than is
desirable for the flow of timely, relevant and accurate data and informa-
tion between the most junior and most senior levels of the organization.
In other words, the capacity of the Chief, Administrative Services to
have regular contact with the most junior staff member in his organiza-
tion is limited by the number of staff and the ways in which they are
organized in working units. As noted earlier, it is not my intent to
make recommendations for organizational changes below the level of Chief
.../120
- 120 -
in any of the organizational units, however, in this instance, it is
evident that this imbalance between the two Chief positions should be
addressed. For this reason, Option #1 is not the preferred option.
The second option considered and depicted in Chart 10, Recommendation #1,
Option #2, focusses on the creation of a third position reporting to the
Director, Administrative and Financial Services. This new position would
be the Chief, Records Management Systems and Services. To this position
would report the existing records staff and mail and messenger staff who
currently report to the Chief, Administrative Services. This re-alloca-
tion of existing staff would address the existing imbalance in responsi-
bilities referred to earlier under the Chief, Administrative Services.
With due respect to the Report a couple of years ago, made by the
consultant from the Public Archives who recommended that there was no
need for a records management function separate from the Administrative
Services Unit, it is my view that the records functions in its current
configuration should report directly to the Director, Administrative and
Financial Services. Therefore, this second option is preferred to the
first option.
The third option considered, as depicted in Chart 11, Recommendation #1,
Option #3 is similar to Option #2 above. The major difference between
Option #2 and Option #3 i s that the new position of Chief, Corporate
Records, Systems and Services would not include the management of case
records pertinent to Appeal, Clemency and Pardons cases. These case
I
I1^1
tt1III1If
^
- 121 -
r
fI
I11t
I0
I
files and records would be managed by a sub-records office, similar to
those in the five (5) Regional Offices, responsible to the proposed
Manager Divisional Services reporting to the Director, Appeal, Clemency
and Pardons Division at headquarters (See Chart 34, Recommendation #2,
Option #3). This would mean that the proposed position of Chief, Corpo-
rate Records, Systems and Services would be responsible for the manage-
ment of all the corporate records and the systems and services pertinent
to these as well as for the overall coordination of the development,
maintenance, control and evaluation of the corporate systems and services
essential to the offender case files managed by regional and divisional
offices. A primary focus of this position would be the coordination of
the development and revision of a corporate policy on records management
pertinent to all NPB files, using as a model the team approach advocated
earlier for the corporate training and professional development policy.
That is, the development of a revised NPB corporate policy on records
management must involve the records managers throughout the NPB.
Subsequently, all records managers would carry out their operational and
corporate responsibilities within the framework of the corporate policy.
This third option is the preferred option not only because it addresses
the current imbalance in the span of control of the existing two posi-
tions of Chief, reporting to the Director but also because it would lik
together in one unit, the existing case submission control functions in
the existing Clemency and Pardons Division with the records management
functions pertinent to Appeal Division cases.
.../122
- 122 -
It is recommended that the position of Director, Administrative and
Financial Services report directly to the Director General, Corporate
Management Systems and Services and that the four (4) positions reporting
directly to the Director, Administrative and Financial Services be:
Chief, Financial Management Services
Chief, Corporate Records, Systems and Services
Chief, Administrative Services
Three options were considered with respect to the position of Director,
Development Corporate Systems and Services. The first option, depicted
in Chart 12, Recommendation # , Option #1, is to retitle the existing
position of Director, Corporate Planning and Management Practices and to
include the existing five (5) indeterminate positions currently reporting
to this position. These are:
Management Practices and Special Projects Officer
Planning and Systems Officer
Program Evaluation Officer
OCE Operator
Secretary
A sixth position (not depicted) currently reporting to this position is
that of a CAPP officer on assignment to the Director for a determinate
period. The position of Program Evaluation Officer has a corporate
.../123
- 123 -
1
I11I'IIIII1III
person year status at the moment and is in the process of being regular-
ized. The transfer of the position of the OCE Operator occurred during
the course of this Review and appears to be an anomaly in the
headquarter's organizational structure, given the pooling of word
processing services in the word processing unit reporting to the Chief,
Administrative Services.
The second option considered is depicted in Chart 13, Recommendation #1,
Option Yr'2. In this option, there would be two (2) new positions report-
ing to the Director, Development Corporate Systems and Systems and as a
result the new and additional responsibilities allocated to this position
would not only account for the new title but would account for changes in
the focus and responsibilities of the Director. The four (4) positions
reporting to the Director are:
Chief, Corporate Systems and Services Development
Chief, Policy, Procedures and Research Development
Secretary
OCE Operator
The positions currently reporting to the Director, as outlined in Option
#1, and the two statistical officer positions currently reporting to the
Director General, HQ Operations would report to the Chief, Corporate
.../124
I
- 12A-
Systems and Services Development. The staff currently reporting to the
Director, Planning and Analysis and the research and evaluation officer
currently reporting to the Director General, HQ Operations would report
to the Chief, Policy, Procedures and Services Development. The advan-
tages to this option would be: an increased capacity of the Director to
coordinate the development processes of corporate and operational work
pertinent to the formulation of NPB corporate and case-focussed policies
and procedures using the project management model proposed for policy
development in Section III of this Report; an increased capacity to
identify, collect, analyse, synthesize and disseminate the corporate NPB
data and information pertinent to the demands of the NPB as a corporate
entity in relation to the requirements of the "machinery of government"
agencies; and the development of corporate systems for planning, organiz-
ing, controlling and evaluating the corporate services essential to the
support of the case-focussed work of the organization. The major disad-
vantage of this option is the separation of staff into two distinct
units, one focussing on systems development, special projects, planning
and audit, evaluation and statistical analyses, and the other focussing
on policy development, research and analysis. Currently, despite organ-
izational boundaries and reporting relationships, projects are being
successfully undertaken under the leadership of staff in the Corporate
Planning unit, which involve regional staff and HQ based planning and
analysis staff. By assigning the statistical liaison and research and
evaluation positions to one or the other unit, these functions which are
essential to both units, have the potential of being caught up in
.../125
I'I1I1I1IIIII1
III
1
- 125 -
houndary conflicts much as they currently are. Given the number of
projects currently planned and/or underway and the proposals for more
contained in this and other reports, it seems appropriate that the
existing staff positions referred to in this option should be supported
through an organizational structure which spans current organizational
boundaries, reduces potential boundary conflicts and provides increased
opportunities for a multi-disciplinary staff focus on corporate issues
and problem resolution.
In the third option, depicted in Chart 14, Recommendation #1, Option #3,
consideration has been given to the development of project teams
reporting directly to the Director, Development Corporate Systems and
Services. In other words, the staff positions reportino to the two Chief
positions in the second option discussed above, would he grouped into
teams reporting directly to the Director.
In this option, each team would consist of staff positions classified at
roughly the same level, each with responsibilities of both a oeneric and
specialized nature, the focus of which is the analysis and synthesis of
data and information crucial to the corporate work of this unit. The
potential for individual management of projects flows from this capacity
to analyse, research and report on the data and information pertinent to
a variety of corporate issues. As a result, the opportunity would exist
for creating two or three or four teams of staff consisting of HQ
corporate and regional/divisional case-focussed Board and staff to
.../126
- 126 -
undertake special projects at any one time. At the same time, corporate
development staff should, would and could carry on with specific tasks as
they now do, flowing from their particular or specialized roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions. For instance, the corporate work
flowing from the NPB annual audit program and cycle would have to be
carried on as a specific responsibility of one of the corporate staff
positions within the corporate policy, systems and services framework;
however the data and information pertinent to the audit would be
collected, analysed, synthesized and communicated to the corporate audit
project manager through several responsibility centres as the result of
the work of many staff and Board members. The particular staff position
or project manager tasked with the corporate audit responsibilities could
also he tasked with other responsibilities flowing from membership in one
or more special project teams. The major advantage of this option would
be the increased capacity of the Director, Development Corporate Systems
and Services and by implication the corporate staff and the NPB as an
entity to plan, organize, control and evaluate the corporate projects
which are initiated at all levels of the organization and approved by the
Chairman in consultation with the Executive Director.
To a large extent, the focus of the Director's position in this option
would be the overall coordination of the work of self-directed
entrepreneurs on a day-to-day basis. Each of these staff positions would
become a project manager or team leader at one time or another and as
such should have direct access on that basis to the Director for the
.../127
IIIIIIIIII
IIII
I
I
- 127 -
period of the project. Each of these position descriptions should have a
statement of general roles, responsibilities, duties and functions appro-
priate to project management and team membership and also a statement
outlining specific and specialized roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions. One of the major disadvantages of this option is the uncer-
tainty derived from with the dynamic nature of project management for
staff who are used to having detailed position descriptions. The other
disadvantage is the perceived lack of upward nobility in the organization
by not having two Chief positions to aspire to. Experience as Project
Managers may psychically compensate for this lack of structural
opportunity but will not in a classification, pay and benefit sense.
The third option is clearly a more radical option than option two and for
this reason, serious consideration should be given to staging the organ-
izational changes proposed in both options. It may be preferable to
adopt Option #3 in the short term and followina an evaluation after the
first full year of operation, decide to retain this organizational struc-
ture or move towards a structure similar to that proposed in Option in.
It is recommended that the position of Director, Development Corporate
Systems and Services, report directly to the Director General, Corporate
Management Systems and Services and that the functions reporting directly
to the Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services be:
.../128
- 128 -
Management Practices and Special Projects
Planning and Systems Development
Program Evaluation and Audit
Policy Analysis
Statistical functions
Research functions
Secretarial functions
Two options were considered in the proposal for the new position,
Director, Information Systems and Services. The rationale for this new
position is derived from organizational theory, observation, interviews
with Board members and staff and NPB studies, reports and documents
pertinent to information systems and services. Contemporary organiza-
tional theory points to the increasing importance of information and
information systems technology as a strategic management tool not only to
reduce costs, but to add significant value to the output of an organiza-
tion's work processes. The requirements for accuracy, timeliness and
currency of information places a high value on the technology that can
efficiently and reliably process and store large quantities of raw data.
This technology includes the hardware and software required for proces-
sing raw data into a form usable by the persons for whom it is intended.
At this point, it may be useful to generally describe three categories of
information systems. These are:
.../129
IIII
IIIIIIIIIIIII
-129-
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
° Electronic Data Processing systems (E DP) - This is the larqest
category of computer-based information systems in use. Financial
Accounting, personnel and statistical transactions are carried out and
records maintained of such using the hardware and software appropriate
to these EDP systems. EDP is essentially a number-crunching system
which carries out repetitive mathematicaby'-based functions.
° Management Information Systems (MIS) - This use of computer-based
information systems is designed to aggregate or summarize data and
information and report it on a periodic basis in a format useful to
managers for purposes of comparing current performance against an
established hase for performance. For example, current budget
expenditure on a monthly base measured against the planned expenditure
level per month or person year usage to date compared to the plan for
person year usage. The MIS involves the aggregation of transaction
data collected through the EDP system but uses different software for
reporting purposes. There is no need to limit the scope of the MIS to
focus on internally generated data through the EDP system. In fact
the failure of most MIS is to limit the data to those internally
generated and thus miss the importance of externally derived and
environmentally significant data. EDP generated data tends to be
routine whereas MIS data needs to be random as well as routine and
periodic because managers need data on demand as well as on a
quarterly or more frequent basis. Attempts to build an MIS with EDP
.../130
I
-130 -
oriented specialists and with technology optimized for low-cost EDP
transactions usually fail to provide what is needed for ongoing
management control and future direction.
If one assumes that information and technology are as important as
capital and labour as components of productivity, then one can say
that MIS improves productivity by adding value to existing manual
management control systems, i.e., MIS improves effectiveness and EDP
improves productivity by displacing costs, i.e. EDP improves effici-
ency. In other words, a contemporary information-based organization
needs to have both EDP and MIS in order to improve efficiency and
effectiveness in its corporate and operational functions. A well
functioning MIS provides managers with data and information pertinent
to answering the question of - "How is my organization performing?"
° Decision Support Systems (DSS) - This use of computer-based informa-
tion systems is relatively new and as a result the software available
to support the concept is not readily available. The focus of DSS is
to provide information to assist managers in making specific manageri-
al decisions, primarily of a planning nature. The use of DSS allows a
manager to incorporate data from both internal and external sources in
order to develop choices, analyse competitive factors, assess proba-
bilities for success, examine the consequences of alternate scenarios
and finally make a decision based on such. DSS allows a manager to
.../131
- 131 -
II
IIIIIIIIIII
ask the question - "What if?" and to a large extent is very abstract
and must he closely tied to assumptions. If the assumptions are
incorrect, so will be the decisions.
All three categories of information systems, EDP, MIS, and DSS, require
different blends of technologies (hardware, software), expertise and
operational standards. The development, maintenance and use of informa-
tion systems require a cultural and attitudinal shift in the orientation
towards work processes by members of most organizations. In fact, most
organizations fail in their first attempts to develop and establish the
usefulness of information systems precisely because the senior management
of the organization does not spend time in orienting the whole organiza-
tion to the benefits and costs of information systems hut rather dele-
gates the responsibility for development to positions too far removed
from the executive decision-makinq processes and too far removed from the
lowest level of work processes. As a result, the expectations for
improved effectiveness and efficiency resulting from the establishment of
information systems, of both the executive level and most junior level
staff in most organizations are not realized. Consequently, both groups
maintain their usual modes of work processes and simultaneously try to
cope with the frustrations emanating from sporadic and misinterpreted
attempts to automate specific tasks. Unfortunately, the development of
EDP systems and APIS within the NPB is similar in most respects to the
picture painted above. The bright spots in the NPB, with respect to
information systems are those EDP systems through which financial and
.../132
I
- 132 -
personnel transactions are carried out, recorded and reported. The
statistical transactions through which data and information are processed
for corporate purposes, i.e., annual reports and studies is less well
developed. In this area, the problem appears to be both a lack of
context and direction within which statistical analyses are carried out
and a Jack of certainty as to the validity and veracity of the data
used. The context should be provided with the proposed close alignment
of the statistical analysis functions with other functions under the
Director, Corporate Development Systems and Services.
In the first option considered, depicted in Chart 15, Recommendation #1,
Option #1, the position of Director, Information Systems and Services
reporting directly to the Director General, Corporate Management Systems
and Services, would have two (2) positions reporting to the Director.
These are:
EDP Systems Officer
APIS, OMS, MIS, Liaison and Development Officer
The primary focus of the position of Director, Information Systems and
Services would be the coordination of the planning, organizing, control-
ling and evaluating of the ongoing development of existing EDP systems,
including APIS and those systems used by financial, personnel, communica-
tions and statistical services and the initiation and coordination of the
development of an MIS for use by all managers in the NPB in exercising
.../133
I
IIIIIIIIIIIII
- 133 -
their corporate roles, responsibilities, duties and functions. The
development of an MIS should be predicated on the need to collect and
process, for corporate decision-making purposes, data and information
derived internally from the outcomes of case-focussed work processes,
from non case-focussed or corporate work processes and from externally
derived sources pertinent to the management requirements for planning,
organizing, controlling and evaluating. Of the two positions reporting
to this position, that of the EDP Systems Officer, would focus on the
operation of the EDP systems and services, including the acquisition of
hardware and software pertinent to the ongoing support of existing infor-
mation systems such as APIS, financial, personnel and communications and
new systems such as R1IS and the Offender Management System (OMS) current-
ly under development by CSC and the NPB. The other position, APIS, OMS,
MIS, Liaison and Development Officer would focus on the liaison with CSC,
information systems and services technicians, regional and HQ managers
and external consultants, as necessary, to coordinate the ongoing and new
development of APIS, OMS and MIS.
The second option considered, depicted in Chart 16, Recommendation #1,
Option #2, is the establishment of the position of Information Systems
and Services Officer reporting directly to the Director General, Corpo-
rate Management Systems and Services. This option is obviously less
costly due to the fact that there are no positions reporting to it.
Given the importance of information to the NPB, the recent and current
problems associated with APIS, the need for an MIS, the joint development
.../134
I
- 134 -
of an O11S with CSC, this option has the major disadvantage of requiring a
superwoman or superman to undertake all these tasks. The major focus of
this position could only be to liaise and coordinate the ongoing develop-
ment of information systems and services undertaken by others probahl^^
external consultants or CSC staff.
The third option considered but not depicted, is to have the position of
Information Systems and Services Officer as described in Option #2 above,
report directly to the Executive Director. Current organizational theory
emphasizes the importance of having the Information Systems and Services
function report at a senior management or executive level in an organiza-
tion in order to ensure that the organizational attitudes towards the use
of information is modelled on those of senior management. Given the
recommendation for reduced span of control of the Executive Director,
this option is not the preferred one.
In choosing the preferred option, consideration should be given to
staging the introduction of this new position particularly in light of
the fiscal constraints facing the NPB. Clearly, the amount of time
currently spent by the Director General, HQ Operations and regional case
preparation managers on information system and services development,
trouble- shooting and liaison with CSC, points to the need for a full-time
position devoted to EDP systems operation and new and revised systems
development. Ideally, once the information systems and services are
developed, they could be transferred to the Director, Administrative and
.../135
I
IIII1IIIIII
IIIII
-135 -
Financial Services; however, this transfer should not be contemplated in
the foreseeable future, that is, during the next several years given the
information needs of the NPB.
Obviously, immediate action needs to be taken because of the current
problems of APIS and the demands being made on the NPB by the OMS
development by CSC. For this reason, it may be preferable to immediately
second a member of the senior staff or middle-management staff who has
demonstrated knowledge, skills and expertise in EDP systems and services,
APIS and other systems, as well as demonstrated knowledge of Board and
staff case-focussed work processes, into the position of Information
Systems and Services Officer as outlined in Option #2 above. The longer
range plan to be considered for implementation by fiscal year 1987-88
should be that outlined in Option #1 above, that is, the establishment e
the position of Director, Information Systems and Services. Should it be
possible to implement preferred Option #1 earlier than fiscal year
1987-88, then action should be taken immediately.
It is recommended that the position of Director, Information Systems and
Services reporting directly to the Director General, Corporate Management
Systems and Services, be established. The two (2) positions reporting to
this position are:
EDP Systems Officer
APIS, OMS, MIS, Liaison and Development Officer
.../136
- 136 -
The development of an NPB corporate policy for information systems and
services should be undertaken as quickly as possible regardless of the
option chosen. It is within the framework of this policy, that the EDP
and APIS users' committees should seek direction and make their recommen-
dations for hardware and software acquisition and revision of existing
systems and services.
The remaining positions reporting to the Executive Director, that is,
those of the Regional Director's and the Director, Appeal, Clemency and
Pardons will be discussed under Question #2.
Question #2: Should the Regional Executive Officer position be enhanced
with additional managerial or administrative responsibili-
ties?
During the course of this Review, the title of Regional Executive Officer
was changed to Regional Director (R D) which is the title used in this and
preceding sections of this Report. In presenting the arguments for
organizational change pertinent to this question, the author has consi-
dered that the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of each
Regional Director are essentially the same. Flowing from this set of
more or less standardized roles, responsibilities, duties and functions
of the RD is a common organizational structure supporting the more or
less standardized work processes of regional staff reporting to the RD in
each regional office.
.../137
II
II11II1
IIIIIIII
- 137-
Three options have been considered with respect to the positions report-
ing directly to the position of Regional Director in each regional office
and with respect to the new position of Director, Appeal, Clemency and
Pardons Division. The first option is that of no change in existing
positions currently reporting directly to the RD, as depicted in Charts
17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Recommendation #2, Option el. The second and
third options considered and depicted in Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, Recommendation #2, Option #2 and Option #3, respec-
tively, are reflective of changes proposed in positions reporting direct-
ly to the Regional Director. With respect to the three options proposed
for positions reporting directly to the new position of Director, Appeal,
Clemency and Pardons, all three options propose changes to the existing
organizational structure and are depicted in Charts 32, 33 and 34, Recom-
mendation #2, Options #1, #2 and #3.
As noted earlier in this Report, the proposal for establishment of an
Appeal, Clemency and Pardons staff unit to support the Board member
decision-making processes (includino the development of recommendations
on requests for clemency and pardons to the Solicitor General) of the
Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division of the Board, in a manner analogous
to those of regional staff units is the basis for the consideration of
these last three options under this question.
.../138
- 138 -
Currently, and as noted in Section III of this Report, the roles, respon-
sibilities, duties and functions of Regional Directors focus mainly on
the day-to-day operational tasks of planning, organizing, controlling and
evaluating the work of regional staff. Within these overall tasks, RD's
are responsible for managing the staff relationships with regional Board
members, relationships between regional NPB staff, between regional NPB
staff and regional CSC staff, between regional staff and HLl staff, and
between the Regional Director and the Senior Board member. In four of
five regions, there are three positions reporting to the Regional
Director (RD) - Regional Manager, Case Preparatim ; Regional Manager,
Case Supervision; and Regional Administrator. Of these three positions,
two - the Case Managers - focus on verifying the contents of the
offender's file prior to the Board members' review and decisions and on
ensuring that the Board members' decisions have been formulated in accor-
dance with Board policy and procedures prior to notification of CSC and
of the offender of the Board's decision. To a large extent and simplis-
tically, the case management function can be described as exercising
quality control over CSC case preparation prior to the Board's decision
and quality control over CSC supervision following a Board decision to
grant conditional release to an offender. One must question the alloca-
tion of NPB regional resources to these CSC quality control functions
particularly in the observed absence of significant value-added case
analysis performed by NPB case management staff. To a lesser extent the
case management staff exercise quality control over the Board decision-
making processes by ensuring compliance of the final formulation of Board
.../139
III
1
I1IIIIII
III
- 139 -
t
IIIIIIIII1III
decisions with NPB policies and procedures. It also appears that the
work of one case manager is well understood by the other and in fact the
total work is shared by the two case managers. There is one case load
managed by two people. The third position reporting to the RD is that of
the Regional Administrator (R A) whose functions focus on financial and
administrative services to the Board members and staff. As well, the RA
provides the main regional contact with HQ financial and administrative
services. The RA in all five regions is responsible for the records and
file management function. It is my view that the responsibilities of
this position can and should be increased in order to free up the RD to
place more emphasis on his overall corporate responsibilities. (See
Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, Recommendation #2, Options
#2 and #3 )
Within each regional office, there is a correspondence and information
officer whose functions include answering ministerial correspondence,
offenders' letters, letters and inquiries from the general public and
advising staff on Access to Information arrl Privacy issues. This posi-
tion reports to the Regional Manager, Case Supervision in four of five
regions. This officer is also tasked with public information and in some
offices with NPB public education duties. This position is the main
regional contact with HQ communications and media relations staff and
with HQ Clemency and Pardons staff. In light of the emphasis placed by
Board and staff on improving the image of the NPB, it seems advisable
that this position report to the RD who is responsible for issues
.../140
I
-140 -
management in each region. The secretarial and clerical support staff in
each regional office provide services to Board members and to staff. The
reporting relationships for these staff vary with each regional office.
In some regional offices, the secretaries to the Board members find
themselves caught in the eternal dilemma of "who do I really work for? -
report to?" especially when "things are going wrong". It seems reason-
able that secretarial and clerical support staff, including micom and OCE
operators be grouped as a functional unit in each regional office for
their own corporate sense of identity and to engender effective and
efficient use of their talents in accordance with changing demands in
each regional office. Analyzing case files, extracting the salient
information and transferring such to face sheets is not a secretarial or
clerical function. It is a case management function. The secretarial
and clerical support staff function would most logically (traditionally,
as well) report to the RA or the newly proposed position of Manager
Regional Services. (See Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
Recommendation #2, Options #2 and #3)
In each regional office, the APIS co-ordinator function currently resides
with the Regional Manager Case Preparation whose interests and developing
expertise may well lie with APIS but whose current role, responsibili-
ties, duties and functions do not. Considering the amount of time
currently required by APIS problems, one must question how much of the
case manager's time is available for case preparation and/or the
overload situation created by the additional APIS responsibilities.
.../141
- 141 -
I
1II1IIIIIIIII
There is an evident and expressed need by the APIS Users Committee for a
discrete information systems and services function in each region. This
function would focus on APIS and EDP systems, technical troubleshooting
and services coordination within each regional office, with other
regional offices, with HQ Information Systems and Services and with CSC
regional information systems and services functions. This Information
Systems and Services position would most logically report to the RA or
the newly proposed position of Manager Regional Services. Should the
incumbent of the position of Manager Regional Services have the know-
ledge, skills and expertise appropriate to the position of Information
Systems and Services technician, then the need for the technician posi-
tion would be redundant. In other words the manager could assume the
function. (S ee Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, Recommen-
dation #2, Options #2 and #3.)
It appears that additional functions are necessary in the regional
offices given the nature of the work and increasing workload of the
regional Board members and the corporate demands of the NPB. As noted in
Section III of this Report, there is an undeveloped regional capacity to
identify and convert operational issues into policy and procedural issues
which can he examined in a corporate sense by the Executive Committee of
the Board and the Senior Management Committee, handed off as staff
projects for time-framed analysis, resolution and eventual (as appropri-
ate) implementation as Board policies and procedures. The case audit
function is not observable at the regional level and as a consequence
...,/142
I
- 142 -
the regional capacity to establish case management policies and standards
and evaluate performance against these is not present. The RD's capacity
to know how the regional organization is performing when the focus is on
case work is surely tied to a case-audit process. As noted earlier in
this Report, the regional offices lack a professional development and
training focus. For Board members and staff orientation training and
professional development is key to high level performance and morale.
Tied to this function is the public education function carried out by
Board and staff in most regional offices.
Regular Board members are for the most part Quite conversant with NPB
policies, procedures and case-file analysis, synthesis and parole
decision-making routines and only occasionally need staff advice on
such. Temporary Board members, due to the itinerant nature of their NPB
work, are less conversant with NPB policies, procedures and parole
decision-making routines and frequently need and seek staff advice on
such. Given the increasing volume and complexities associated with
Parole Panel hearings and increasing use of Temporary Board Members in
these hearings, the notion of having an NPB staff Hearing Officer in
attendance, has great validity. The functions included in this position
should include attendance at Parole Board Hearings for the purposes of:
electronic recording of the proceedings; advising Board members on NPB
policy and procedural issues as they arise durina the proceedings;
recording in draft form the salient points of the hearing discussion as a
basis for Board members' in-camera discussion of the issues and reasons
.../143
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
- 143 -
leading to the decisions on the case at hand; formulating a draft summary
of their reasons and decisions for Board members' final formulation and
approval of such; and routing of this final decision throuqh the notifi-
cation function of the case management section in the regional office.
Currently, the case management preparation function in an NPB regional
office verifies the content of each CSC prepared case file in accordance
with the standards set out in the NPB-CSC Administrative Agreement; how-
ever, as noted earlier in Section III of this Report, this function
undertakes little, if any, further NPB - focussed analysis or synthesis
of the case file prior to Board review and decision making. As noted
earlier, in most regional offices, it is the Board Secretaries who
undertake case file analysis and transferance of salient features of the
file to face sheets. This is a very risky business to have staff
unschooled in case analysis doinq such work crucial to Board members'
decisions. One must question the necessity of having a case management
function which adds only quantitative clerical value but little, if any,
qualitative case analysis value to the CSC prepared case file. However,
if there is recognized value in having an NPB developed risk assessment,
release and reintegration-oriented decision-making policy framework for
Board Member decision-making then there is definitely an important,
value-added and different role for the case management function.
Currently the case management function is fragmented according to a
"piece work" or assembly line approach to work on case files. This
approach historically evolved and was most appropriate to 19th century
.../144
I
- 144 -
factories producing textiles and motor-carriages. It is no longer appro-
priate for these businesses and certainly is inappropriate for
information-based decision-making activities. It would unquestionably be
more interesting and satisfying for staff and more effective and effici-
ent in terms of quality and quantity of information added and deleted
during case file analysis, if case management staff were grouped into
case management teams. Each team could be given responsibility for the
"work up" of a number of case files. This would mean that individual
case management staff would be accountable for a number of files from the
initial case analysis stage, through the Board review and decision making
stage to the notification of the offender stage. This would represent a
holistic rather than a "piece work" approach to case management and lodge
responsibility and accountability with individuals at lower levels in the
organization. Each case management team would include existing verifica-
tion and notification clerks under the supervision of a new position -
the Case Review Officer, who in turn would report to a Regional Case
Manager. This team approach would also address some of current problems
arising from no perceived "back-up" in reaional offices when a notifica-
tions or verifications clerk is on vacation or on sick leave. It appears
possible to have two or three case management teams in each region,
depending upon the total regional case load, using existina case manage-
ment staff. The possibility would exist of having a Case Review Officer,
or a case review clerk available on a scheduled basis to attend Panel
Hearings as the Hearing Officer. (See Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
.../145
IIIIIIIIIII1t
IIII1
-145 -
29, 30, 31, Recommendation #2, Option #2 and #3) As well, Case Review
Officers or Case Review Clerks could assist Board members during
office-based "paper votes" as required.
It appears that the number of cases which a NPB regional office receives
from CSC on an annual basis is known historically and is relatively easy
to predict, the number of Board members available for case review and
decision making is relatively stable and the time frames and voting
procedures for dealing with each case are stipulated hy the NPB Act,
regulations, policy and procedures. The question that then arises is the
reason for the current variations between regional offices in the numbers
and levels of staff required for the case management function particular-
ly when the critical functions pertinent to case management have been
identified through the Regional Work Load Study, confirmed by the
Management Operational Review and aoreed to by the Regional Directors.
It would appear that the current case management process is not standard
across all regional offices. Regional variations in case-load can
account for small variations in numbers of staff by region but cannot
account for wide variations in numbers between regions with similar case
loads or for variations in levels of staff by region.
The case management function needs to be restructured in order to under-
take value added work processes involving analyses and synthesis of data
pertinent to the case file. Additional responsibilities such as identi-
fication of the need for formulation of new case-focussed policies and
.../146
- 146 -
procedures, regular auditing of case management work processes within a
case management policy framework and participation in corporate policy
development is indicative of the enhanced role and responsibilities of
regional case managers in all regions.
With reference to Question #2 posed at the outset, the Regional
Director's position in each regional office should be enhanced with
additional managerial or administrative responsibilities as outlined.
For this reason, the first option considered, that is, no change in the
existing organizational structure in each regional office is rejected.
In the second option considered and depicted in Charts 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, Recommendation #2, Option #2, the proposed six (6) positions report-
ing directly to the Regional Director are:
Regional Case Manager (two)
Correspondence and Information Officer
Professional Development and Public Education Officer
Manager Regional Services
Secretary
That is, a change from four (4) to six (6) positions reporting to the
Regional Director is proposed for all five regions. To each position of
Regional Case Manager would report a team of case review clerks composed
.../147
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
II
-147 -
of existing verification and notification clerks. In each region, there
could be two teams of case review clerks each headed by a Case Review
Officer. As noted earlier, the number and size of the case review teams
is dependant upon the case load in each regional office. In both the
second and third options, the proposed case management work processes are
holistic in nature, that is, a change from the current assembly-line
approach in which several staff work on each case file to an approach in
which each case management team member is responsible for the
identification, collection, analysis, synthesis and dissemination of the
data and information in a case file prior to, during and after Board
decision-making. This value-added approach not only enhances the roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions of each case review team member
but also those of the Reoional Case Manager and the Regional Director.
In choosing the preferred option, consideration of the fiscal constraints
facing the NPB and the rate of change desirable in each regional office,
must be considered particularly in light of the current workload of Board
and staff members. Obviously, Option #3, which proposes one position of
Regional Case Manager to replace the existing two (2) positions of
Regional Manager, Case Preparation and Regional Manager, Case Supervision
is less costly in that a person year is saved; however, it may not be
less costly with respect to the need for stability in the organization
while new case management work processes are introduced. In other words,
Option #2 may be the preferred option for immediate change and Option #3
may be the preferred option for long term change beginning in fiscal year
.../148
- 148 -
1987-88. Clearly, the formulation of NPB corporate policies for case
management, communications and public information, orientation training,
professional development and public education, records management and
information systems and services, to name but a few, will take at least
two years to complete and action. Each of these policies will have a
direct impact on the work processes undertaken by the staff in and
reporting to the positions reporting to the Regional Director. Thus, the
initiation and implementation of structural change in each regional
office must be planned, organized, controlled and evaluated in tandem
with other changes proposed in this and other reports currently
underway. Option #2 is the preferred option for immediate implementation
and Option #3 is the preferred option for implementation in the longer
term, beginning in fiscal year 1 987-88.
It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions
of the position of Regional Director be upgraded as a result of the
increase in the number and nature of the positions reporting to the
Regional Director. The five (5) positions reporting to the Regional
Director are:
Regional Case Manager
Information and Correspondence Officer
Professional Development and Public Education Officer
Manager Regional Services
Secretary
.../149
IIIIIAI1IIItIII1II
- 149 -
I
I
IIIIIIIIIII
As noted in Section III of this Report, the shared leadership role of the
RD and the SBM will also enhance the roles, responsibilities, duties and
function of the RD.
The implementation of changes in the organizational structure and work
processes in each regional office will necessitate a review of the
classification of existing positions. These positions currently are
characterized by a lack of contiguity between positions within the same
reporting chain. As well, there are obvious variances between the
position description of verifications and notifications clerks,
secretaries to Board members and the actual work done by the incumbents
of these positions. Position descriptions, position classifications, a
ladder approach in reporting relationships and equity among positions
with similar responsibilities all should be addressed during the
implementation of organizational change.
Three options were considered with respect to the proposal for the
establishment of the new position of Director, Appeal, Clemency and
Pardons Division. Currently, the Case Analysis and Review unit located
at HQ, undertakes the collection, analysis and synthesis of the data and
information contained in a case file prior to its review by the Appeal
Division of the Board following a request by an offender for a re-
examination of a Regional Board decision on his/her case. As well, and
currently, the Clemency and Pardons unit of the NPB undertakes the inves-
tigation, collection, analysis and synthesis of the data and information
.../150
I
-150 -
pertinent to a request to the Appeal Board for clemency under the provi-
sions of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy and a pardon under the Criminal
Records Act. Each of these different units undertakes work of an
analytical nature - supportive of Board decision-making processes leading
to a decision on an offender or to a recommendation for clemency or
pardon to the Governor-in-Council. During the course of this Review,
these two staff units were aligned through a single reporting
relationship to the position of Chief, Clemency and Pardons reporting in
turn to the position of Director General, HQ Operations. As noted in
Section III of this Report, this alianment of staff functions whose work
processes are governed by the work processes of the Appeal Division Board
members appears to make sense. The proposal to change the name of the
Appeal Division of the Board to the Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division
of the Board would provide the public identification of the roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions of both Board members and staff
engaged in these specific activities.
The first option considered and depicted in Chart 32, Recommendation #2,
Option el is that of proposing the establishment of the new position of
Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division. This new position would
have three (3) existing positions reporting to it. They are:
Chief, Clemency and Pardons
Chief, Case Analysis and Review
Secretary
.../151
I
1IrI1IIIIIIIIII
- 151 -
Reporting directly to each of the Chief positions, would be the existing
staff positions as depicted in Chart 32. This new position of Director,
Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division would report directly to the
Executive Director and would have roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions analogous to those of Reqional Directors. The case-focussed
work processes of staff in these two units reporting to the Director
would also be analogous to those of regional case management staff but
would be carried out within the policy framework specific to Appeal,
Clemency and Pardons.
The second option considered and depicted in Chart 33, Recommendation #2,
Option #2 is an option modelled on an analogous option for the Regional
Offices (See Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). Given that the Appeal, Clemency
and Pardons Division is located at HQ and has direct access to the
services provided by the Communications Division reporting to the Chair-
man and to the Professional Development and training unit reporting, as
proposed earlier to the Director, Human Resource Services, then the argu-
ment for these two (2) discrete positions reporting to the Director,
Appeal, Clemency and Pardons is weakened. There is, however, a need to
focus the work processes of the staff reporting to the proposed position
of Case Manager Clemency and Pardons, on holistic work processes rather
than an assembly -line approach to case files. The Clemency and Pardons
staff are currently organized in teams, as is proposed for regional case
management staff; however, their case management approach has recently
changed from a case load and individual case file analysis and synthesis
.../152
I
- 152 -
approach to a piece-work approach. For the same reasons as advanced for
a holistic case management approach to case files in regional offices,
the staff work processes associated with review of Clemency and Pardons
files should be refocussed. In this option, the six (6) positions
reporting to the Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division are:
Case Manager, Clemency and Pardons
Correspondence and Information Officer
Manager Divisional Services
Professional Development and Public Education Officer
Case Manager Appeal
Secretary
The two Case Managers' positions are retitled existing positions, that
of, Chief, Clemency and Pardons and Chief, Case Analysis and Review. The
three new positions proposed in this option are the Correspondence and
Information Officer, Professional Development and Public Education
Officer and Manager, Divisional Services. Of these three positions, that
of Manager, Divisional Services is the one which is essential. In this
option, there is a proposal for a case records unit, as presented earlier
in this Section in the discussion of the changes in the positions report-
ing to the Director, Administrative and Financial Services. (See Chart
11, Recommendation #1, Option #3).
.../153
IIIIIrIIIII1IIIIIAI
-153 -
The third option considered and depicted in Chart 34, Recommendation #2,
Option #3, is a variation of Option #2 presented above. In this option
there would be four (4) positions reporting directly to the Director,
Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division. These positions are:
Case Manager, Clemency and Pardons
Manager, Divisional Services
Case Manager, Appeal
Secretary
This option is obviously less costly than the second option presented.
This option, as does Option #2 requires the refocussing of the existing
Clemency and Pardons work processes and a restructuring of the staff
teams into two teams rather than the existing three teams. The option of
having two or three teams reporting to the Case Manager, Clemency and
Pardons, is dependant upon the case load and the work processes. In this
option, as in Option #2 above, the establishment of the case records unit
is dependent upon the transfer of Appeal, Clemency and Pardons case files
and associated staff functions and positions from the HQ records units
currently reporting to the Chief, Administrative Services. In this
option, the case submission unit in Option #2 is merged with the case
records unit.
.../154
- 154 -
The preferred option is Option #3 as depicted in Chart 34, Recommendation
#2.
It is recommended that the position of Director, Appeal, Clemency and
Pardons Division be established and report directly to the Executive
Director. The four (4) positions reporting to the Director, Appeal,
Clemency and Pardons are:
Case Manager, Clemency and Pardons
Manager, Divisional Services
Case Manager, Appeal
Secretary
The implementation of the organizational changes proposed in this recom-
mendation should be accompanied by a review of position descriptions,
position classifications and reporting relationships particularly in the
Clemency and Pardons unit and the Records Unit or the proposed suh-
records office.
Question 0: Should the Regional Executive Director report to the
Director General?
The answer to this question has already been proposed in the arguments
made in response to Question #1. The answer is no.
.../155
IIII
t.1I
IAIIII
I
I
-155 -
fft is recommended that the Regional Directors report directly to the
Executive Director.
Question #4: Should a distinction be recognized between "macro" and
"micro" policy issues (depending ion the actual or poten-
tial level of impact) with responsibility for development
ssigned to the Director, Planning and Analysis and the
Secretary to the Board, respectively or to a new director-
ate that would report to the Executive Director or the
Chairman?
The recent history of policy formulation, interpretation and implementa-
tion within the NPB leads one to suggest that NPB policy processes are
frought with both fragmentation and lack of coordination. In a highly
decentralized and differentiated organization, such as the NPB,
fragmentation and specialization of functions must be countered with
strong and explicit coordination mechanisms if the organizational
mandate, mission, goals and objectives are to be achieved in an effective
and efficient manner. It became apparent through interviews with Board
and staff members that traditional coordination mechanisms, such as
weekly or even monthly staff meetings were not well developed nor
regularly used as a means of exchanging information or affirming organi-
zational direction or specific issues of importance. The geographic
separation of Board members and staff contributes greatly to the fragmen-
tation and provides a strong rationale for strong corporate coordination
.../156
- 156 -
mechanisms such as regular meetings of the General Board, Executive
Committee, Senior Management Committee, senior staff management committee
and so on. To an outside observer, one of the myths held about the NPB
is that there is a Board which meets regularly and in accordance with
traditional meeting rules and procedures which govern the way in which
the Board conducts its affairs as a corporate entity. Clearly, this is
not the reality of the NPB nor is it likely to be, given the current
fiscal constraints. Alternate ways then must be found to strengthen
existing mechanisms and to develop new coordination mechanisms appropri-
ate to a contemporary, information-based, decentralized organization.
Obviously regular Board and staff meetings in Regional and Divisional
offices and staff meetings at FIQ are key coordinating mechanisms as are
Board member meetings.
Another mechanism for coordination of work processes is that of having a
well defined mission, corporate values, and a corporate and operational
policy framework within which Board members and staff can exercise their
initiative, judgement and discretion in carrying out their work. This
approach implies ongoing efforts at coordination of work processes by
each individual in the organization and strong corporate leadership in
encouraging and rewarding such an approach. In the recent past, attempts
have been made to promote strict adherence to well-defined procedures as
a coordinating mechanism. In the absence of a mission and a well-defined
policy framework, this approach has a lot of merit; however, this proce-
.../157
rIIII11IIIIIIIIIiI
I
- 157 -
IIiII1IIIII.1III
dural approach has been less than successful probably due to the fact
that the vast majority of Board members and staff bring a relatively high
level of professional and/or technical expertise to bear on their work
and as a result tend to be problem solvers rather than procedure follow-
ers. Should the proposals presented throughout this Report, for the
development of policy frameworks as guides to work processes be accepted
then the policy formulation, interpretation and implementation processes
become crucial to coordination and congruence of work processes and
long-term corporate viability, legitimacy and credibility.
The proposal for these policy formulation, interpretation and implementa-
tion processes set out in Section III, pages 67 to 70, points to the need
for a coordinated, multidisciplinary, regional and HQ approach to policy
formulation, the need for a single corporate voice in the Chairman's
office in final policy interpretation and the need for policy implementa-
tion and policy identification at the level of operational work proces-
ses. The policy processes are circular, dynamic and require ongoinq
feedback to and from all operational units if they are to he useful,
credible and legitimate.
Given this proposal, it is very difficult to answer Question #4 because
the context in which the proposal has been made is so different from that
in which the question was posed. If one interprets "macro" policy as
policy statements which answer the "What" and "Why" and "micro" policy as
procedural statements that answer the "What", "Who", "When", "Where" and
.../158
-158 -
"How" of issues, then the answer to the first part of the question posed
is yes, there should be a distinction between policy and procedure.
Policy is the umbrella under which procedures are developed for the
purpose of implementing the policy. Policy and procedures go hand-in-
hand. Currently, there are well developed procedures for case-focussed
and non-cam-focussed work of an operational nature. As noted earlier in
this Report, despite all the discussion and conflict surrounding policy
issues in the NPB, there remains a serious policy vacuum particularly
with respect to corporate and case-focussed work processes.
As set out in the proposal for policy formulation the responsibility for
policy and procedure development rests with the Board and staff members
throughout the NPB under the overall direction of the Chairman. It is
the Chairman who decides whether there is a need for a new policy or
procedure following the initiation of a request or query from Board
members and/or staff. Should the need be established, then the Chairman,
through the Executive Director directs that a project team be established
under the direction and coordination of the Director, Development
Corporate Systems and Services. This team which is representative of
expertise throughout the NPB formulates the policy and/or procedure,
forwards such to the Chairman in final draft form for his approval. The
final draft policy then is examined by the Senior Management Committee
which in turn sends it to the Executive Committee for final approval and
promulgation. In its approved final form, the policy and/or procedure is
enshrined in the appropriate NPB manual for implementation by Board
.../159
1
I1I1IIIIfIII
- 159 -
members and staff. This model is such that the development of policy and
procedures is not lodged in only one organizational unit but rather is
lodged in the position descriptions of RD's, SBM' s, regional and divi-
sional case managers, HQ corporate managers, the Chairman, the Executive
Director, legal counsel, members of the Executive Committee and Senior
Management Committee. In other words, policy development, as proposed,
is a boundary spanning activity throughout the organization and becomes
everybody's business because policy becomes integral to one's work.
The answer to the last part of the question posed is no, the responsibil-
ity for policy development should not be assigned to the Director,
Planning and Analysis nor to the Secretary to the Board nor to a new
directorate that would report to the Executive Director or the Chairman.
As noted earlier in this section of the Report, the position of Director,
Planning and Analysis has been suhsumed into the organizational unit
reporting to the Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services.
The position of Secretary of the Board has been subsumed into the
Chairman's Office organization.
It is recommended that the proposal for policy development
in the NPB, outlined in Section III, pages 67 to 70, of
this Report be accepted.
.../160
-160 -
It is recommended that responsibility for policy
development be assigned to the Director, Development
Corporate Systems and Services.
Question 15: Should the Director, Planning and Analysis assume the
policy functions presently under the responsibility of the
Secretary of the Board?
Given the recommended proposal for policy functions in answer to
Question #4 above, this question becomes redundant.
Question 16: Should the Director, Planning and Analysis report directly
to the Executive Director?
As noted above in response to Question #5, this question is redundant
given the recommended proposal for policy functions.
Question #7: Should the present senior staff positions at Headquarters
be retained?
As recommended in response to Questions #1 and #4 above, the following
senior staff positions at Headquarters should be retained:
.../161
IIIIi1I
1IIIIIIiI
- 161 -
Director, Personnel and Official Languages
retitled as
Director, Human Resource Services
Director, Finance and Administration
reti tl ed as
Director, Administrative and Financial Services
The existing senior staff positions at Headquarters which are recommended
for elimination are:
Director General, !iQ Operations
Director, HQ Programs
Director, Planning and Analysis
Director, Corporate Planning and Management Practices
Secretary to the Board
The recommended new senior staff positions at Headquarters are:
Director General, Corporate Management Systems and
Services
Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services
Director, Information Systems and Services
Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division
.../162
I
- 162 -
The positions of Secretary of the Board and Director of Communications
were both included as senior staff positions at the time this question
was posed.
It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties
and functions of the existing position of Secretary to the
Board be transferred to the Office of the Chairman.
The rationale for this recommendation is simply that the focus of the
work of the Secretary of the Board and that of the staff reporting to
this position is on the da/*-to-day case and policy focussed business of
Board members rather than on the day-to-day business of staff. The
functional direction provided to this position has been through the
Vice-Chairman acting on hehalf of the Chairman even though the line
direction is officially provided by the Executive Director. This
recommendation is therefore intended to regularize the functional
direction through a line reporting relationship to the Chairman.
In early May, 1986, the position of the Director of Communications and
the staff reporting to this position was transferred to the Office of the
Chairman.
It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties
and functions of the existing position of Director of
Communications be retained in the Office of the Chairman.
.../163
IIIIi1If11AIIIIIrII
-163 -
Question #8: Should the present reporting relationships or structure be
revised in other ways?
With reference to the senior staff positions reporting to the Executive
Director which have been examined in this Report, there are no further
recommendations to be made, at this time, by this author. Having said
this and mindful of the mandate of this Review which confines the recom-
mendations for organizational change to those changes flowing from the
roles, responsibilities duties and functions of specified senior staff
positions, this author has acceded to the request of the Chairman to
propose changes to the existing organizational structure of the
Chairman's office.
rive (5) options for organizational change in the Chairman's office have
been considered and are depicted in Charts 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39. As
noted throughout this Report, the Chairman has a dual role, that of
Chairman of the Board and that of Chief Executive Officer of the NPB.
For this reason, each of the organizational charts referred to above,
depicts the duality of this role and the Board member and staff reporting
relationships to the position of Chairman. The position of Vice-Chairman
is depicted in each of the charts as a first level relationship reporting
directly to the Chairman.
.../164
- 164 -
This is intended to denote that the position of Vice-Chairman is such
that in the absence of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman assumes the roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions of the Chairman.
In Option #1, Recommendation #3, depicted in Chart 35, consideration has
been given to the retention of the existing organizational structure and
the positions and functions currently reporting directly to the
Chairman. Should the recommendations made earlier in this Report with
respect to the transfer of specific staff positions to the Chairman's
office be accepted, then this option is clearly not feasible.
Given the duality of the Chairman's role and the complexity of the
internal and external environment within which he carries out his work as
head of the organization, the existing organizational structure of and
functions within the Chairman's office are not sufficiently differenti-
ated to provide him with the level and type of data, information and
analyses essential and appropriate to his roles, responsibilities, duties
and functions. Clearly there is a need to further differentiate the
organization by establishing functions which focus on liaison and
boundary spanning, intelligence gathering and environmental scanning,
external shock reduction and internal stability induction. Through the
position of Executive Director, as Chief Operating Officer, the Chairman
has direct access to data, information and analyses flowing from the
ongoing corporate and operational work of staff throughout the NPB.
Through the position of Director, Communications, the Chairman has direct
.../165
II
I
1rIIIfI
IIIArI
-165 -
access to the media and to the communications network within the criminal
justice system. As needed, legal advice on a variety of issues is
provided by Senior Legal Counsel reporting directly to the Chairman,
however, the time available for this advice is limited as is the existing
framework within which legal counsel must work as staff seconded from the
Department of Justice. The existing sources for NPB casa -focussed policy
interpretation are the Secretary to the Board and legal counsel. The
former position currently reports to the Executive Director and the
latter positions are overloaded with other duties. The position of
Executive Assistant focusses on screening of incoming mail, reports,
studies, memoranda, documents, briefing of the Chairman, monitoring
correspondence and multitudinous other tasks on a daily basis. Functions
pertinent to ministerial, offender, general public, special interest
group correspondence are currently located in the unit reporting to the
Secretary to the Board as are the functions associated with scheduling,
organizing, recordino and reporting of meetings of the Board and other
Board/staff committees. This description is not intended to be
comprehensive but rather to emphasize the array of functions which flow
directly from the role of the Chairman. Despite the existence of all
these functions, the capacity for their coordination is limited by their
disparate reporting relationships. Clearly, this option is not the
preferred one.
.../166
- 166 -
The second option, depicted in Chart 36, Recommendation #3, Option #2,
attempts to redress the deficits of the existing organizational struc-
ture.
In this option, the new position of Executive Secretary reporting
directly to the Chairman, is established. The staff reporting to this
position include: Secretary, Administrative Assistant, Special Case
Inquiry Officer and Executive Correspondence Officer. Of these four (4)
positions reporting directly to the Executive Secretary, one position,
that of, Special Case Inquiry Officer is new. The other three (3) posi-
tions are transferred from the Secretary to the Board unit. The position
of Clerk reporting to the Special Case Inquiry Officer is new.
A third new position has been established in this option, that of,
Special Advisor reporting directly to the Chairman. With the addition of
this specialized position and that of the Executive Secretary and the
staff reporting to the latter position, the capacity within the
Chairman's Office to identify, collect, analyse and disseminate data and
information appropriate to the responsibilities of the Chairman is
enhanced.
In this option, there are four (4) positions reporting directly to the
existing position of Senior Legal Counsel. They are: Legal Counsel, two
Secretaries and the Access to Information and Privacy Officer. The
existing position of Chief, Access to Information and Privacy and the
.../167
tI11fIIIIII11
I
I
M
- 167 -
1
a
III
I11r11II
four (4) person unit reporting to this position has been transferred from
the existing structure reporting to the Director, HQ Programs. Both the
Commissioner of Access to Information and the Commissioner of Privacy
advocate that the Access to Information and the Privacy units in an
organization report as close as possible to the Deputy Head, in this
case, the Chairman of the NPB. As well, it is advisable that there be
ongoing and close liaison with the legal unit in the organization due to
the ongoing need for legal advice on many ATIP and Privacy issues. Each
of these reouirements is met in this option. As well, the Senior Legal
Counsel position would assume the responsibilities of Coordinator, Access
to Information and Privacy of the NPB, responsibilities formerly resident
in the position of Director, HQ Programs.
The span of control of the Chairman in this option is six (6) including
the position of Administrative Assistant whereas the span of control of
the Executive Secretary is four (4). It seems reasonable to suggest that
the establishment of the position of Executive Secretary should have as
one outcome the reduction of the Chairman's span of control.
The third option considered is depicted in Chart 37, Recommendation ik3,
Option #3. In this option which is a variation of Option #2, above, the
Chairman's span of control has been reduced by one position, that of,
the Director, Communications to five (5). In this option, the Communica-
tions unit has been divided into two units, each reporting directly to
the Executive Secretary. The two positions are, Manager, Public Informa-
.../168
I
- 168 -
tion Programs and Special Assistant, Media Relations and Public Affairs.
A new position, that of, Clerk reporting to the Special Assistant, Media
Relations and Public Affairs has been added. As well, the titles of the
existing positions have been changed to reflect recommended changes in
functions.
In an attempt to limit the Executive Secretary's span of control to five
(5) positions reportino directly to him, despite the addition of the two
Communications unit positions, the new position of Manager, Case Services
has been established in this option. To this position would report the
following four (4) positions: Executive Correspondence Officer, Special
Case Inquiry Officer and Access to Information and Privacy Officer.
These latter two positions with functions which are case-focussed are
located in the Chairman's Office due to the high profile nature of the
work flowing from the functions. Special or sensational incidents
involving an offender on parole immediately involve the Chairman with the
Commissioner of CSC and both with the media. Immediate follow up analy-
sis and evaluation of such cases is essential not only to the credibility
of the NPB decision-making processes and to CSC parole supervision
processes but also necessary as a learning/teaching experience for Board
members and staff. With respect to the transfer of the Access to
Information and Privacy unit from the Legal unit to the Secretariat, this
option provides an alternative reporting relationship for this unit. The
rationale for this reporting relationship is based on the notion that
most of the work carried out by the staff in the ATIP and Privacy unit is
.../169
- 169 -
I
III1IrItI1^I.1
case-focussed as would be the work within the Case Services unit. It
would still be possible to maintain close ties with the Legal unit. In
fact, the Senior Legal Counsel could still assume the responsibilities of
Coordinator, ATIP and Privacy. In this option, the need for the new
position of Clerk, reporting to the Special Case Inquiry Officer,
identified in Option #2, appears to be unnecessary given the two
secretarial positions in the Case Services unit. In this option, the
position of Executive Secretary is strengthened, the span of control of
the Chairman is reduced and the capacity of the Chairman's office to
carry out key functions which focus on liaison, intelligence gathering,
environmental scanning, and buffering of external shocks in order to
maintain internal stability within the NPB is further enhanced. In
addition, the coordination capacity of case related issues is linked and
strengthened. The major disadvantage of this option lies in the
separation of the existinq Communications unit into two (2) units thereby
weakening the coordination of the functions. The coordination of these
functions would become the responsibility of the Executive Secretary.
In the fourth option considered and depicted in Chart 38, Recommenda-
tion #3, Option #4, the Chairman's span of control remains at five (5)
and the Executive Secretary's span of control remains at five (5) as in
Option #3. In this option, the two (2) Communications units in Option #3
are merged into one new position, that of, the Director, Public Informa-
tion Programs and Media Relations reporting directly to the Executive
Secretary. This unit has six (6) positions instead of seven (7) as in
.../170
I
-170 -
Option #3. The change in title of the position of Public Affairs Officer
in Option #3 to the title of Media Relations Officer in this option
reflects the importance of a focus on the media relations function within
this unit. In this option, the position of Manager, Case Services,
depicted in Option #3 is eliminated. With the transfer of the Access to
Information and Privacy unit to the Legal unit for the reasons described
in Option #2, there appears to be a weakened rationale for the position
of Manager, Case Services or the position of Secretary to the Manager,
with only two other positions reporting directly to it and four positions
in total in the unit. There would, however, be the need for a new
position of Clerk reporting to the Special Case Inouiry Officer as
outlined in Option #2. The coordination of case-related functions would
become the responsibility of the Executive Secretary in this option.
However, the coordination of Communications functions would be
strengthened in this option through the position of Director.
The fifth option considered and depicted in Chart 39, Recommendation #3,
Option #5, is a variation on Options #2, #3 and #4. In this option, the
Chairman's span of control remains at five (5) and the Executive
Secretary's span of control is reduced to four (4). The four (4) posi-
tions reporting directly to the Executive Secretary are: Manager, Case
Services; Director, Public Information Programs and Media Relations;
Administrative Assistant and Secretary. The major advantage of this
option is that the Executive Secretary should have more time available to
devote to the key functions which focus on liaison and boundary scanning,
.../171
1
ItIII
IIyytI
- 171 -
intelligence gatherinq and environmental scanning, external shock reduc-
tion (or fire-fighting) and promotion of stability within the NPB - all
on behalf of the Chairman. These functions should be shared with the
Executive Director, Senior Legal Counsel and Special Advisor. Given the
well-defined roles, responsibilities, duties and functions and the
workload of the Executive Director and the workload of the Senior Legal
Counsel in this option, it is more likely that these functions will be
shared for the most part between the Special Advisor and the Executive
Secretary. The capacity for coordination resident in the two positions
of Manager, Case Services and Director, Public Information Programs and
Media Relations is a major factor in the increase in time availahle to
the Executive Secretary for these functions.
Of the five options considered, the preferred option is Option #5 as
depicted in Chart 39, Recommendation 43.
It is recommended that the positions reporting directly to
the Chairman be:
Special Advisor
Senior Legal Counsel
Executive Secretary
Executive Director
Administrative Assistant
.../172
I
- 172 -
It is recommended that the positions of Special Advisor
and Executive Secretary be established and report directly
to the Chairman.
It is recommended that the positions of Manager Case
Services and Director, Public Information Programs and
194{edia Relations reporting directly to the Executive
Secretary, be established.
A restatement of the recommendations contained in this Section of the
Report will be made in Section V - Recommendations for Change, which
follows.
.../173
I11iIItI
IIIrM11I
-.173 -
Section V - Recommendations for Change
One of the key premises of the Organizational Review has been that
organizational structure must conform to work processes. That is to say,
form follows function. Hence, the focus in Section III of this Report on
the work processes of Board members and staff. Through the examination
of the work processes of an organization, tasks can be defined and linked
together into functions which are the key building blocks in an organiza-
tion. The ways in which functions are defined, aligned and grouped
configure the organizational structure. As is the case with most complex
structural endeavours it is advisable to have a concept of the end
product, to seek information, advice and assistance from the most know-
ledgeable and reputable sources, to assess the site and prevailing condi-
tions, to estimate the costs, confirm the resource limitations and to
have a blueprint prior to embarking on the actual construction. The
blueprint, in the case of the NPB, is the product of the interaction
among many antagonistic and synergistic factors - statutory authorities,
mission, guiding principles, corporate and personal values, environmental
influences and corporate culture, management styles, resource demands and
constraints, corporate and personal goals, corporate and operational
policies, directives, procedures, preferences and practices.
To continue the metaphor, well conceived structures are designed to
facilitate the quality of life and work of the residents. So should
organizational structures support and facilitate the quality of the work
.../174
- 174 -
undertaken by members in carrying out their roles, responsibilities,
duties and functions. Over time all structures require renovation if the
structure is to survive the wear and tear wrought by different residents
and the quality of life of the current residents is to be preserved. In
the NPB, not only have the residents in the positions in the
organizational structure changed over time but so have the volume and
nature of their work and the environment within which they carry out
their work. For these reasons, in particular, "renovation" and
realignment of the organizational structure within the staff organization
of the NPB has been proposed through the recommendations made in Section
IV of this Report.
Structural realignment means change not only in reporting relationships
but also in personal relationships. Changes in ways in which work is
carried out is stressful in the short term even though the new approach
may be more effective, efficient and satisfying in the long term. Change
in both work processes and reporting relationships will not be easy for
anyone in the organization. What has been proposed in Sections III and
IV of this Report, if accepted in whole or part, will require on the part
of all Board members and staff an abundance of good will, humour and
patience, positive yet critical and creative thinking and judgement,
persistent yet flexible perspectives on long term organizational
development, commitment to the realization of the plans for change and to
the time frames established, compassion for and understanding of human
frailty and frustration in coping with change. The list is endless
.../175
tI1
AIrt
1It1II
I
- 175 -
Ii1I
II1 ,
IIrI
because change impacts each individual in a unique manner. For this
reason, changes in organizational structures, reporting relationships and
work processes will require strong leadership not only by the Chairman
but by all Board members and staff in the NPB.
With the publication of a report such as this espousing organizational
change, change immediately becomes the eighth deadly sin and its prophet
a pariah. With this imminent change in status in mind, the following
recommendations for organizational change in the National Parole Board
are proposed.
Recommendation #1 in response to Question R
1.0 It is recommended that the position of Executive Director, as Chief
Operating Officer of the National Parole Board be retained ►yith a
reduced span of control.
1.1 It is recommended that the eight ( 8) positions reporting directly
to the position of Executive Director be:
Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services
Regional Director, Atlantic Region
Regional Director, Québec Region
Regional Director, Ontario Region
Regional Director, Prairies Region
.../176
I
-176 -
Regional Director, Pacific Region
Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division
Administrative Assistant
(See Chart 3, Recommendation #1, Option #3)
1.2 It is recommended that the position of Director General, Corporate
Management Systems and Services be established and that the primary
responsibility for planning, organizing, coordinating, controlling
and evaluating of corporate systems and services be allocated to
this position.
1.3 It is recommended that the five (5) positions reporting directly to
the position of Director General, Corporate Management Systems and
Services be:
Director, Human Resource Services
Director, Administrative and Financial Services
Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services
Director, Information Systems and Services
Secretary
(See Chart 3, Recommendation 11, Option 13)
1.4 It is recommended that the position of Director, Human Resource
Services report directly to the Director General, Corporate
.../177
r
I
1II
f
IIIrIIII
- 177 -
Management Systems and Services and that the five (5) positions
reporting directly to the Director, Human Resource Services be:
Chief, Personnel, Official Languages, Audit and Policy
Chief, Staff Relations and Human Resources
Chief, Personnel Operations
Head, Professional Development Unit
Secretary
((See Chart 7, Recommendation #1, Option #2)
1.5 It is recommended that the position of Head, Professional
Development Unit reporting directly to the Director, Human Resource
Services be established.
1.6 It is recommended that the position of Director, Administrative and
Financial Services report directly to the Director General,
Corporate Management Systems and Services and that the four (4)
positions reporting directly to the Director, Administrative and
Financial Services be:
Chief, Financial Management Services
Chief, Corporate Records, Systems and Services
Chief, Administrative Services
((See Chart 11, Recommendation #1, Option #3)
.../178
1
-178 -
1.7 It is recommended that the position of Chief, Corporate Records
Systems and Services reporting directly to the Director
Administrative and Financial Services, be established.
1.8 It is recommended that the position of Director, Development
Corporate Systems and Services, reporting directly to the Director
General, Corporate Management Systems and Services be established
and that the functions reporting directly to the Director,
Development Corporate Systems and Services be:
Mènegement Practices and Special Projects
Planning and Systems Development
Program Evaluation and Audit
Policy Analysis
Statistical functions
Research functions
Secretarial functions
(See Chart 14, Recommendation 11, Option 13)
1.9 It is recommended that the position of Director, Information
Systems and Services reporting directly to the Director General,
Corporate Management Systems and Services be established. The two
(2) positions reporting directly to this position are:
.../179
- 179 -
EDP Systems Officer
APIS, OMS, MIS, Liaison and Development Officer
((See Chart 15, Recommendation #1, Option #1)
I
II
I11II1e
I
1.10 It is recommended that the position of APIS, OMS, MIS, Liaison and
Development Officer reporting directly to the Director, Information
Systems and Services be estahlished.
Recommendation #2 in response to Question #2
2.1 It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions of the position of Regional Director be upgraded as a
result of the recommended increase in the number and nature of the
positions reporting to the Regional Director. The recommended five
(5) positions reporting directly to the Regional Director are:
Regional Case Manager
Information and Correspondence Officer
Professional Development and Public Education Officer
Manager Regional Services
Secretary
((See Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, Recommendation #2, Option #2)
.../180
t
- 180 -
2.2 It is recommended that the position of Professional Development and
Public Education Officer reporting directly to the Regional
Director, be established.
2.3 It is recommended that the position of Information Systems and
Services technician reporting directly to the Manager, Regional
Services be established.
2.4 It is recommended that the position of Director, Appeal, Clemency
nd Pardons Division be established and report directly to the
Executive Director. The recommended four (4) positions reporting
to the Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons are:
Case Manager, Clemency and Pardons
Manager, Divisional Services
Case Manager, Appeal
Secretary
((See Chart 34, Recommendation #2, Option #3)
2.5 It is recommended that the position of Manager, Divisional Services
reporting directly to the position of Director, Appeal, Clemency
and Pardons, be established.
IIIIIrI
II1tft11IrI
- 181 -
Recommendation 13 in response to Question #3
3.0 It is recommended that the Regional Director report directly to the
Executive Director.
Recommendation #4 in response to Question #4
4.1 It is recommended that the proposal for policy development in the
NPB, outlined in Section III, pages 67 to 70, of this Report be
accepted.
4.2 It is recommended that responsibility for policy development be
assigned to the Director, Development Corporate Systems and
Services.
There are no recommendations in response to Questions #5 and 16.
Recommendation 17 in response to Question 17
7.1 It is recommended that the following senior staff positions at
Headquarters he retained:
Director, Personnel and Official Languages retitled as
Director, Human Resource Services
.../182
- 182 -
Director, Finance and Administration retitled as
Director, Administrative and Financial Services
7.2 It is recommended that the following senior staff position at
Headquarters be eliminated:
Director General, Headquarters Operations
Director, Headquarters Programs
Director, Planning and Analysis
Director, Corporate Planning and Management Practices
Secretary to the Board
7.3 It is recommended that the following new senior staff positions at
Headquarters be established:
Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services
Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services
Director, Information Systems and Services
Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division
7.4 It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions of the existing position of Secretary to the Board be
transferred to the Office of Chairman.
.../183
tr1IIIIIIIIIt
I
-183 -
7.5 It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions of the existing position of Director of Communications be
retained in the Office of the Chairman.
Recommendation 18 in response to Question 18
8.1 It is recommended that the positions reporting directly to the
Chairman be:
Special Advisor
Senior Legal Counsel
Executive Secretary
Executive Director
Administrative Assistant
8.2 It is recommended that the position of Special Advisor and
Executive Secretary be established and report directly to the
Chairman.
8.3 It is recommended that the positions of Manager, Case Services and
Director, Public Information Programs and Media Relations,
reporting directly to the Executive Secretary, be established.
.../184
- 184 -
Given the tightly knit "family" culture of the NPB, the large number of
staff with long term service with the NPB and/or with CSC or other
agencies in the criminal justice system, the long term commitment to
specific roles and positions within the NPB, consideration should given
to phasing in the implementation of these recommendations over a two year
time period.
Throughout this Report, many suggestions for change in work processes and
on other issues of a non-structural nature have been made. Of these key
proposals for change, the following are recommended.
9. It is recommended that the position descriptions of the Regional
Directors and the Senior Board Members be reviewed for the purpose
of clarifying their respective distinct roles, responsibilities,
duties and functions and identifying and incorporating into their
respective position descriptions those corporate and operational
functions which require shared leadership in the Regional Offices.
10. It is recommended that policy frameworks be established for Board
decision-making, staff case management, Board and staff case audit
processes, Board and staff orientation training and professional
development, public information and communications, public
education, information systems and services and records
management.
.../185
IIIII
III1
I
IItI
- 185 -
I
II1IIIttI
III
11. It is recommended that the NPB policy and procedures manual derived
from the Parole Act be revised to include references to the section
of the Parole Act or regulations or court ruling from which each
policy statement and attendant procedural routine is derived.
12. It is recommended that the NPB corporate and operational role,
responsibilities, duties and functions in supervision of paroled
offenders be clarified and stated as a policy.
13. It is recommended that the case management work processes of staff
he based on a holistic case work approach with the case load
allocated to case review teams reporting directly to case managers.
14. It is recommended that case review team members act as hearing
officers to assist Regional Board members at NPB Panel hearings.
15. It is recommended that consideration be given to the proposal that
senior staff in Regional Offices be delegated authority to make
administrative decisions of a non-release, non-revocation, non-
detention nature with respect to changes in the Terms and Condi-
tions of Parole proposed by CSC supervisory staff pertaining to an
offender who has been granted conditional release by the Board and
is currently under CSC supervision.
.../186
11
•
I
II
- 186 -
16. It is recommended that the mandate, roles, responsibilities, duties
and functions of Appeal Division Board members be clarified and
that the links between the roles, responsibilities, duties and
functions of Appeal Division and Regional Board members be estab-
lished.
17. It is recommended that the Appeal Division of the NPB be renamed
the Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division of the NPB.
18. It is recommended that a policy framework for Board decision-making
and recommending work and staff case management work be formulated
and be specific to the statutory requirements of the Appeal,
Clemency and Pardons Division of the NPB.
19. It is recommended that the position descriptions of the Chairperson
and Director of the Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division be
reviewed for the purposes of clarifying their respective distinct
roles, responsibilities, duties and functions and identifying and
incorporating into their respective position descriptions, those
corporate and operational functions which require shared leader-
ship.
20. It is recommended that the emphasis be placed on providing oppor-
tunities for Board members and staff to learn about each other's
.../187
- 187 -
aaork and share ideas through orientation training and professional
development, regular meetings and project work internal and
external to the NPB.
I
1IIII111I
IIi
During this Review, other important issues were raised by Board members
and staff. Although these issues do not easily lend themselves to recom-
mendations, some of the issues most commonly raised are as follows:
o Board members need career planning and advice.
o Most Board members would like to work on an exchange basis in all
regional offices for short periods in order to gain an understand-
ing of regional differences and exchange ideas.
o Staff members are concerned about their position classifications
and lack of opportunities for career advancement in the NPB and
perceive that they cannot easily move into positions either within
the criminal justice system or within the federal public service.
o Temporary Board Members want to be included in the corporate as
well as operational life of the Board.
o Board members and staff want to have regular opportunities to meet
with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Executive Director.
o Board members and staff want to have regular opportunities to raise
and comment on important issues facing the NPB.
o Board members and staff are concerned with respect to the corporate
and operational changes occurring in CSC in light of maintaining
and improving the relationships between the NPB and CSC.
,../188
I
- 188 -
o Board members and staff are looking for and expect clear corporate
direction and leadership.
o The public image and credibility of the work of the NPB is a major
concern.
o Board members and staff want more concise and precise data and
information of a statistical nature pertinent to their work.
Obviously, these are only a few of the issues identified through personal
interviews with approximately one hundred individuals. Through regular
meetings of Board and staff focussed on corporate and operational
matters, these issues and others no doubt will be raised and hopefully be
resolved.
In summary, the existing organizational structure of the National Parole
Board should be realigned to bring the structure into conformity with the
changed nature of the work processes of Board members and staff. In so
doing, improvements in the effectiveness and the efficiency of the work
processes should be the goal.
This Final Draft Report of the NPB Organizational Review has presented
issues, options and recommendations for organizational change based on an
analysis and assessment of the roles, responsibilities, duties and func-
tions of specified senior staff positions within the context of the
corporate and operational work processes of Board members and staff. To
what extent, this Review has achieved its purpose is for the reader to
judge.
1
I
III1I
1I1f
IIII
APPENDIX A
March 19, 1986
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
WORK PLAN FOR THE NPB ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
The purpose of the Review is to make recommendations for change based on an examination of the organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board.
The review will consist of eight phases over a seven month period:
Phase 1: Orientation of NP3 members and staff to purpose and methodology of Review.
Phase 2: Assessment of statutory, organizational and operational environment within which NPB carries out its mandate.
Phase 3: Definition of functions performed within each organizational unit of the National Parole Board.
Phase 4: Identification of variances between mandated functions and actual work performed by each organizational unit of the National Parole Board.
Definition of the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board with particular reference to policy development and implementation of a strategic, operational and administrative nature.
Assessment of the functional relationships between and among specified senior staff and relevant subordinate staff within the existing structural and operational organization of the National Parole Board.
Assessment of the structural and operational efficiency and effectiveness of the National Parole Board as an organizational entity with respect to its existing mandate.
Presentation of recommendations for change in the organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board.
Phase 5:
Phase 6:
Phase 7:
Phase 8:
2
SCHLDULL FOR UftGAN11AFi0NAL KLVILW
PHASES MARCH ANRIL
Phase I Orientation of National Parole Boardmembers and staff to purpose andmethodology of Review
Phase 2Assessment of statutory, organizationaL and operationa.lenvironment within which the National Parole Board carried outits mandate
= = m m ^ = m m m m m m m m m = = = m
ma um am urn am am um am um am am am am mu am ma MI am ma 3
SCHEDULE FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
PHASES MAY JUNE JULY
Phase 4
Phase 5
Definition of functions performed within each organizational unit of the National Parole Board
Identification of variances between mandated functions and actual work performed by each organizational unit of the National Parole Board
Definitions of the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board with particular reference to policy development and implementation of a strategic, operational an administrative nature.
Phase 3
4
SCHEDULE FOR ORGANILATIONAL REVIEW
PHASES
Phase 6
AUGUST SEPTLi•IUER
Phase 7
Phase ti
Assessment of thefunctional relationshipsbetween and among specified
senior staff and relevantsubordinate staff within theexisting structural and
operational organizationof the Natiônal Parole 130ard.
Assrssment of the structural andoperational efficiency and effectivenessof the National Parole Board as anorgai ► izationai entity with respect toits existing mandate.
Presentation of recoiumendation:for change in the oryaniz<i-tional structure, roles,responsihi lit Les, duties andfunctions of specified seniorstaff positions wlthin theNational Parole 13uard.
M M M M M M M M M W M M M M M M - M M
= = = = = = = = = = M M = = M = = = M
5
WORK PLAN FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
Phase 1: Orientation of National Parole Board hiembers and Staff to Purpose and methodology of Review.
APPROACH March 3-14 March 17-21
Study and assessment ofpertinent backgrounddocumentation - statutes,
regulations, reports, policies,procedures, guidelines,organization charts, MYOP,
strategic plans.
Planning and development of Preparation ofReview methodology detailed Work Plan
and Data Collectionguide
Development of CommunicationsPlan
March 24-28
Preliminary information and Informal conversations Scheduled Interview withdata gathering with NPB staff' HQ staff, Executive
Director, Vice-Chairman,Chairman
Consultation with Organization Revision and approval ofReview Reference Group for Organizational Reviewdirection.and confirmation approachof approach
Introduction of Review leader Scheduling of interviews Memo from Chairman, to NPB mtmber:to NPB members and staff with NPB staff and staff outlining the purpose
and nature of the OryanizatiorialReview
Tuning into the culture and environment of decision-making within the NPB.
Regular progress reports to NPB Organizational Review Reference Croup.
WORK_PLAN FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVILW
Phase 2: Assessment of statutory, organizational and operational environment within which the NPB carries out its mandate.
APRIL . 7-11 APPROACH
Data collection and analysis using a structured interview format.
March 31-April 4
Interviews with selected WES staff at HU and in Regional Offices.
APRIL 1-4-18 APRIL_21 725
Confirmation of direction of Review and/or revision of work plan concomitant with changes in direction.
Introduction of Review leader to WO members through attendance at NPB General Board meeting, other decision making meetings, panel hearings and other meetings focussing on strategic and operational policy.
Preparation of an assessment of the NIU Statutory, oi;ganizaLiona and operational environ-ment based on data and information collected through interviews und documents.
ZINIM11311111111111M111111111•1111111I111111•11111113 ■131111111111111111 ■11111•1•111111111
WORK PLAN FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
Phase 3: Definition of functions performed within each organizational unit of the National Parole Board.
APPROACH April 28-May 2
Data Collection Interview with specifiedand analysis. senior staff for
clarification of data
collected to date.
Understanding
the structural andoperational framework of the NPf3.
Regular progressreports to NPBOrganization
Review Reference
Group.
May 5-9 MAY 12-16 MAY 19-30
Review of Annual Reports,annual work plans,evaluation reports, AGReport, Nielsen Report and
other documents pertinent tothe Review process.
Confirmation ofdirection ofReview.
8
WORK PLAN FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
Phase 4: Identification of variances between mandated functions and actual work performed by each organization unit of WeNational Parole Board.
APPROACIi
Analysis ofstructural.,operational and
environmentalaspects of NPL3.
June 2-6 June 9-13
Development of case study Interviews with selected staffapproach for use with in CSC and Ministry Secretariatselected Board members in order to gather data andand staff in Workshop in information with respect toPhase 5. their level of understanding of
the organizational structure,
roles, responsibiLities,duties and functions of seniorNPB staff and of the day-to-dayissues common to bothorganizat.ions.
June 16-20 June 23-27
Painting a pictureof the internal andexternal environ-ment of the NPB
Regular progressreports to NPB
OrganizationalReview ReferenceGroup.
Confirmation ofdirection ofReview.
Communication withNPB members andstaff.
Consultation with selected NPB
members and staff with respectto issues identified in interimreport.
Preparation of interimreport based on analysisof' data collected todate.
IZuview and revision ofwork plan for remaini.nyPhases of Review.
Nemo from Chairman W NPIimembers and 5taffoutLining status of
Urganizations Review.
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
APPROACH JUNE 30-JULY 4 JULY 7-11 JULY 14-18 jULY 21-25
Review of job descriptions, classifications, span of control, delegated authority, reporting relationships.
Data Collection and analysis.
Clarification of the work of specified senior staff in policy development.
Regular progress reports to NPB Organizational Review Reference Group.
Confirmation of direction of Review.
9
WORK PLAN FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
Phase 51 Definition of roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board with particular reference to policy development and implementation of a strategic, operational and administrative nature.
2 to 3 day Workshop with selected Board Members and staff using a case study approach designed to analyse the policy development process in NPB with respect to the role of Board Members and the role of staff and to differentiate the strategic, operational and administrative policy development and implementation processes.
Assessment of data and information collected during and as a result of workshop.
.or
10
WURK PLAN FUR URGANILATIUNAL REVIEW
Phase 6: Assessment of the functional relationships between and among specified senior staff and relevant subordinate staffwithin the existing structural and operational organizational of the NPU.
APPROACH JULY 28-AUGUST 1 AUGUST 4-8 AUGUST 11-15 AUGUST 18-29
Analysis of the day Interviews with Seniorto day ope:rat.ions board Members focussing onof the NPU. the nature of the work of
the NPl3. from a Boardperspective. interviewswith selected senior stafffor purposes ofclarification of data and
information collected inPhases I to 15.
Understanding the Review of operational policies,decision making procedures, guidelines, paperprocess within the flow, communications systemssenior staff of the and approaches, feedback mecha-NP13. nisms, evaluation processes,
time frames for action, problemsolving mechanisms, relation-ships with external environ-ment, ie., CSC, central agenc-ies.
Regular progressreports to NPUOrganizationalReview ReferenceGroup.
Confirmation ofdirection ofReview.
Assessment of authoriLyand dec is ion-mak i ncisLructure - Who is re-sponsible for whal? Whois accountable for what?Are those responsiblealso accountahlc: for cJe-cisions? lilenl.if'icatiunof prnhlems/issues per-tinent to senior staffpositions, inclucliny lineand stal'f' reporting re-lati.onship. (SecAppendix A for specificquestions '.^.^ N. aclfarl;;]s-
= = = = M M = = M s ^ ^ ^ ^ =IW")===
M M M M M M M M M ! M M M M M M M M M
1l
WORK PLAN FOR ORGANILATI(1NAL RLVILW
Phase 7: Assessment of the structural arid operational effectivenrss* and efficiency** of the NP13 as an organizational entitywith respect to its existing mandate.
APPROACH September 1 to 12 September 15 to 19
Analysis of the structural and
operational aspects of the NPB inorder to answer the question. Do theexisting organizational structuresand operational processes support thework of the NPB in the most effectiveand efficient manner possible?
Regular progress reports to ReviewReference Group.
Confirmation of direction of Review
Review and analysis of data and information
collected with respect to:
- Environmental factors impacting on work of
NPf3 including perceptions of Board, staff,target population, co-operators, lobby/influence groups, central ayencies;
- General Management processes related tostatutory authorities, mandate, mission,goals, objectives, priorities, strategies;- Operational Management processes relatedto policies, standards, procedures,directives, operational plans, technology,
management information systems,co-ordinating mechanisms, performanceindicators;
- Resource Management processes related tothe -allocation and conversion ôf resourceinputs into desired outputs or results;
- Organization structures reflective offunctiohs, position levels, span of control,decision-making authority and
accountability, reporting relationships andpatterns of interaction, informal and formalcommunication and co-ordination networks.
Preparation of final report ofOrganizational Review, including
recomme,ndations for change.
* effectiveness - doing the right
thing*^ efficiency - doing things right
12
WURK PLAN FUR ORGANIZAIIUNAL REVIEW
Phase 8: Presentation of recommendat ions for change in the organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, dut les and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board.
APPROACH
Presentation of final report to Review Reference Group.
Revision of recommendations in final report following discussion with NPB Organizational Review Reference Group.
Consultation with NPB members and staff on recommendations in Final Report.
Development of Action Plan based on recommendations.
Communication with NPB members and staff.
SEPTEMBER 22-26 SEPTEMBER 29-OC IOBER 3
Memo Urom Chairman Lo NPB members and staff on status of Organizational Review and Final Report of the Review.
11111111111111111113011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111•1111•111111111111111111111111111111111161111
Appendix A
Specific Questions to be Addressed in Organizational Review
IIII1IIIIIII
1. Should the Executive Director's span of direct control be maintained,
increased or reduced? If the latter, should some responsibilities be
allocated to another existing position, or a new position?
2. Should the Regional Executive Officer position be enhanced with additional
managerial or administrative responsibilities?
3. Should the Regional Executive Officer report to the Director General?
4. Should a distinction be recognized between "macro" and "micro" policy
issues (depending upon the actual or potential level of impact) with
responsibility for development assigned to the Director, Planning &
Analysis and the Secretary to the board, respectively or to a new
directorate that would report to the Executive Director or the Chairman?
5. Should the Director, Planning and Analysis assume the policy functions
presently under the responsibility of the Secretary to the Board?
6. Should the Director, Planning & Analysis report directly the the Executive
Director?
7. Should the present senior staff positions at Headquarters be retained?
8. Should the present reporting relationships or structure. be revised in
other ways?
I
1 ./2
APPENDIX B
National Parole Board
Organization Review
Data Collection and Analysis
Given that the Organizational Review Reference Group provides the ongoing
leadership to the Review process, this paper therefore attempts to both fully
apprise and to seek direction and approval from the Reference Group for the
proposed data collection and analysis process of the Review.
As indicated in the Organizational Review Work Plan, interviews with NPB members and staff are of prime importance in the collection of data and
information pertinent to the Review. Given that the purpose of the Review is
to make recommendations for change based on an examination of the
organizational structure roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of
specified senior staff positions within the NPB, one might be tempted to
interview each NPB member and staff; however, neither time nor resources
permit such an approach, nor does it appear to be necessary.
The preferred approach is one which attempts to select positions and therefore
individuals working in these positions for interviews. This approach requires
the development of criteria for selection purposes. Such a criteria-based
approach appears rationale and less-biased to both those who are selected for
interviews and those who are not selected.
As is the case with most "rational" processes, this one is not "fail-safe" and
should be used as a guideline for selection purposes and not as a rigid rule
for exclusion of individuals whose work may be key to the Review process but
whose position in the organization falls outside the criteria. Consistent
with the purpose of the Review, the application of the criteria should first
identify the key positions in the organization and then by implication the key
individuals to be interviewed.
• 1
-2-
In addition to the collection of data and information through interviews.,
other sources of data - statutes, regulations, reports, studies, policies
procedures, guidelines, organization charts, P1YOP, Estimate - will be examined
and assessed. Attendance by the Review leader at selected meetings of key NPB
committees will also provide data and information pertinent to the Review.
A - Suggested Criteria for Selection of Positions
I. specified senior staff positions
2. positions to which specified senior staff report
3. positions which report to specified senior staff
4. positions with membership in key NPB committees
5. positions of liaison between the NPB and department agencies and
organizations outside the NPB
6. positions representative of the work, workload and key functions of
the NPB in HQ and Regional offices
7. positions in departments, agencies and organizations outside the NPB
with liaison functions with the yPi3 on a regular basis.
B - Suggested Positions and Individuals to be Interviewed
*Asterisk refers to position and name listed more than once
1. Specified Senior Staff Positions
i) Executive Director Jim Siberry
ii) Director General, HQ, Operations Gord Parry
iii) Regional Executive Officers Erv Williams
Serge Lavallée
Norm Fagnou
Betty-Lou Edwards
I
IIIIIIII1III1 1
I
1
-3-
I
IIIIIIIII
II
iv) Secretary to the Board
v) Director, Planning and Analysis
vi) Director, Finance and Administration
vii) Director, Personnel and Official Languages
2. Positions to Wnich Specified Senior Staff report
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
*Executive Director
3. Positions Which Report to Specified Senior Staff
*Secretary to the Board
*Director, General, H.Q., Operations
*Director, Finance & Admin.
Director, Communications
*Director, Personnel and O.L.
Sr. Corporate Planning Officer
ii) *Director, Planning and Analysis
Director, HQ, Operational Programs
iii)r-Regional Manager/Case Prep.
Atlanticl Regional Manager/Case Sup.
LRegional Administrator
Gilles Depratto
Line Audet
Ray Simms
Jim Scrimger
William Outerbridge
Roger Labelle
Jim Siberry
Gilles Depratto
Gordon Parry
Ray Simms
John Nugent
Jim Scrimger
Brendan Reynolds
Line audet
Bernard Cloutier
Gerry Greene
Diane McConkey
Enid Holmes
.../4
I
r-Regional Manager/Case Prep. Prairies' Regional Manager/Case Sup.
[...Regional Administrator
r_Regional Manager/Case Prep. Ontario ' Regional Manager/Case Sup.
L_Regional Administrator
r-Regional Manager/Case Prep. Pacific I Regional Manager/Case Sup.
L_Regional Administrator
John Wilson
Carol Sperling
Audrey Cavanaugh
John Bissett
Len Meier
Ron Mihell
Fraser Simmons
Gerry Ayotte
Sharone Young
-4-
r-Regional Manager/Case Prep. .Micnel Frappier
Quebec I Regional Manager/Case-Sup. Guy Petit-Clair
L_Regional Administrator Thérèse Beaulieu
iv) Senior Advisor on Professional
Standards and Development Jean Sutton
v) Position reporting to Director, Planning
and Analysis
vi) Chief, Financial Management Terry Kennedy
Chief, Administrative Services Vince Nation
vii) Chief, Personnel and DI. Audit & Policy Liz Phillips
Chief, Staff Relations and Human Resources Elaine Shaw
Chief, Personnel Operations Earl Hanratty
• • •/5
1II1II11II1I
-5-
4. Positions with Membership in Key NPB Committees
i) Executive Committee
*Chairman
*Vice-Chairman
Senior Board Members
Chairman, Appeals Committee
Quartet
*Chairman
*Vice-Chairman
*Executive Director
iii) Management Committee
*Executive Director
*Secretary to the Board
*Director General, HQ Operations
*Director, Finance and Administration
*Director, Communications
*Director, Personnel and O.L.
*Director, Corporate Planning
and Management Practices
Wm Outerbridge
Roger Labelle
Roy Evans
Jean-Paul Gilbert
Mac Stienburg
Noël Sharp
Kathy Louis
Wm Outerbridge
Roger Labelle
Jim Siberry
Jim Siberry
Gilles Uepratto
Gord Parry
Ray Simms
John Nugent
Jim Scrimger
Brendan Reynolds
I
-6-
*Regional Executive Officers
Coordinator, Management Committee
Erv Williams
Serge Lavallée
Norm Fagnou
Betty-Lou Edwards
Don Tully
5. Positions of Liaison between the NPB and department agencies and
organizations outside the NPB
*Chairman William Outerbridge
*Vice-Chairman Roger Labelle
*Executive Director Jim Siberry
*Senior Board Members Roy Evans (Atlantic)
Jean-Paul Gilbert
(Québec)
Mac Stienburg
(Ontario)
Noël Sharp (Prairies)
Kathy Louis (Pacific)
6. Positions Representative of tne work, workload and key functions of the
NPB in HQ and Regional Offices
Chief, Clemency and Pardons
Chief, Case Analysis and Review
Chief, Access to Information and Privacy
Chief, Liaison and Program Development
Chief, Media Relations and Public Affairs
Corporate Planning Officers
Project Manager, Program Evaluation
Correspondence and Information Officer
Paul Connolly
Dave Johnston
Janet Ackroyd
M. MacNaughton
Andy Roy
Cathy Gainer
Don Tully
Sheila Faure
Elaine Cherkewich
(Prairies)
IIIIIII
ItIIIII
II
--7-
Senior Notifications Clerk .
Secretary to Senior Board Members
Verification Clerk
Betty Warden (Ontario)
Betty Dick (Atlantic)
Sonia Lacroix (Québec)
Marg Kelly (Ontario)
Donna Flessa (Pacific)
Li' Prysiazniuk
(Prairies
Paul L'Espérance
(Québec)
7. Positions in Departments, Agencies and Organizations outside the NPB with
liaison functions with the NPB.
Correctional Services Canada
Deputy Commissioner Offender Programs
Director, Community Release Programs
Director General, Policy, Planning and Systems
Solicitor General - Ministry Secretariat
Director, Strategic Policy
Director, Policy Analysis and Support
Policy Analyst
Gordon Pinder
Drew Allen
Andrew Graham
Joan Nuffield
Richard Zubicki
Mariève Marchand
As noted at the outset of this paper, the interview process is designed to
elicit information and gather data pertinent to the purpose of the Review. At
the same time, the interview process can be used to convey information about
the purpose and nature of the Review and thereby engender staff participation
in and a sense of investment in the outcomes of the Review. With this
interactive process in mind, the interviews should be structured in such a way
as to encourage discussion focussed on some broad questions.
•/8
-8-
C - Suggested Questions for interviews
° What is the nature of your work and how do you carry it out?
° What statutes, policies, procedures, guidelines, and directives are
essential/not essential to your work and that of your unit?
° How would you rate the level of understanding of the roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions of your unit among staff in your
unit? At lower levels in the organization? At higher levels in th:i
organization? At the Board member level?
°Is there overlap, and duplication and/or gaps in roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions across organizational units? If
so, what are they? What should be done? Who should initiate any
changes?
° What problems, issues and concerns (if any) do you encounter in your
work as it relates directly to the work of other Departments, agencies
and organizations outside the NP8? What should be done? How? by Whom?
° What is your role in the policy formulation and implementation process
within the NPB? How would you distinguish strategic policy from
operational policy matters?
°How would you describe the organizational culture and environment of
your unit? Are there major differences in organizational culture and
environment across the NP8? If so, describe them and how they impact
your work.
° How have your role, responsibilities, duties and functions changed since
you first assumed your position?
III1III
ItIII
II
-9--
o Which features of your work are unique within the NPB and which
distinguish the work of the NPB from the work of Other organizations?
o From your position in the organization what resources and strategies are
essential to carrying out your work in an effective* and efficient**
manner?
o What standards do you use to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of
your work? If standards do not exist, then what should they be? Who
should establish the standards? How should they be used?
o Are there alternate ways of performing your work and that of your unit
in order to improve effectiveness and efficiency, in terms of more
timely results? If so, what are they? Who should initiate any changes?
o What mechanisms exist and are essential to ensure effective and
efficient co-ordination of work of your unit and other organizational
units across the NPB? What changes should be made? By whom?
.0 What are the strengths and weaknesses of the organizational structure of
your unit and that of the NPB as a vehicle for carrying out the mandate,
goals, objectives and priorities of the NPB?
o Do you have any recommendations for changes to your position, positions
reporting to you, position to which you report, other positions within
your organizational unit and your Division, and the NPB as an
organization? If so, what is your rationale for these changes? When?
How?
*effective - doing the right thing
**efficient - doing things right
-../10
-10-
Other comments. What have we missea that is important for the purposes
of the Organizational Review?
These questions will be used with selected staff in interviews on a one-to-one
basis and in some instances in small groups. It is anticipated that each
interview will not exceed 90 minutes. In preparation for the interview, each
person selected will receive a copy of the Review Work Plan and the Suggested
Questions in advance of the interview date.
For interviews with Board members, there will be a more Board-oriented series
of questions focussing on tne nature of the work of the NPB.
Interviews with selected individuals in the CSC and the Ministry Secretariat
will focus on gathering data, information and perspectives with respect to the
level of knowledge and understanding of the NPB, including the reporting and
authority structures, roles, responsibilities of senior NPts staff and the
day-to-day issues common to both organizations. A secondary but no less
important focus would be the use of the interview as a means of clarifying
lines of communication.
D - A Case Study Approach
A second series of interviews, though important for confirmation of data, may
not be the sole preferred approach for clarification of the roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff in policy
development and implementation. As an approach complementary to the
interviews, a case study would engender the discussions and analysis essential
to the differentiation of strategic from operational policy and administrative
policy and in so doing clarify and redefine the roles of senior staff and
Board in each. A case study approach can provide a relatively non-threatening
opportunity for key members of an organization, as a group, to examine their
roles, responsibilities, duties, functions and decision making approaches.
Using a relevant but fictitious case, senior staff would analyse the
IIII
IIIIIIIi
I
II1
I
I
IIIII
.I1tI1II
situations presented and by inference gain a better understanding and
appreciation of their roles and work within the NPB. The case study would be
designed to focus on the following outcomes: an increased appreciation of the
context in which decision making on policy issues takes place within an
organization similar to the NPB; a more in-depth understanding of the decision
making process with respect to differentiating strategic policy issues from
operational policy matters; clarification of roles, responsibilities, duties
and functions of specified senior staff and Board members vis à vis policy
development and implementation; and suggestions for change pertinent to an
improved policy development process for the NPB.
E - Proposed Schedule for Data Collection
As indicated in the Review Work Plan, the first five Phases of the Review
focus on data collection and preliminary analysis of such. For this reason, a
first round of interviews with selected staff is scheduled for late March and
April. Should a second round of interviews be necessary in order to complete
the assessment of functional relationships between specified senior staff and
relevant subordinate staff, then these interviews would be scheduled for July
and early August.
Interviews with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman as the key decision makers in
the NPB will be scheduled early in the Review process, that is, in
March/April. The process of clarification and confirmation of data may
require that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman be interviewed at least twice
during the period of the Review.
Interviews with Senior Board members should not require more than one session
with each individual and probably should take place in the appropriate
Regional Office in late July or August, that is, as part of the final
assessment of the NPB as an organizational entity.
I
-12-
Interviews with staff in the CSC and Ministry Secretariat should require only
one session and will scheduled for the month of June.
Consistent with the purposes and desired outcomes proposed for the case study
approach, a two to three day workshop for specified senior staff (and selected
Board members if desired) will be scheduled in July, that is, during Phase 5
of the Review. With sufficient advance notice, it should be possible to
schedule this workshop so that the vacation schedules of those involved can be
respected.
In summary, this paper attempts to outline in broad terms some preferred
formal approaches to the collection of data and information pertinent to the
Organizational Review. Opportunities exist for the informal collection of
information through day-to-day contact between the Review leader and staff
working in various positions on a variety of tasks. By its nature, this
informal process defies easy description and is therefore undefined but not
unrecognized in this paper. Suffice to say that data and information
collected through both formal and informai processes will be useful to the
attainment of the purposes of the Organizational Review.
March 21, 1906
APPENDIX C
I
I
I
1I
IIIiII
National Parole Board
Organizational Review
Suggested Questions for Interview with NPB Staff
The interview process is designed to elicit information and data pertinent to
the purpose of the Organizational Review. The suggested questions are
designed to engender a discussion of the nature of the work of individuals in
a variety of positions within the NPC and by inference illuminate the
structural and operational aspects of the NPB as an organizational entity.
The interviews which should take approximately one hour and not exceed ninety
minutes, will be conducted by the Organizational Review leader, Sheila
Murray. Prior to the interview, each person to be interviewed should have
received and be conversant with the Organizational Review Work Plan and
Questions for Interviews with NPB Staff.
-2-
Suggested Questions
o What is the nature of your work and how do you carry It out?
o What statutes, policies, procedures, guidelines and directives are
essential/not essential to your work and that of your organizational unit?
o How would you rate the level of understanding of your roles,
responsibilities, duties and functions among staff In your unit? At lower
levels in the organization? At higher levels in the organization? At the
Board member level?
o Is there overlap, duplication and/or gaps in roles, responsibilities, duties
and functions across organizational units? If so, what are they? What
should be done? Who should initiate any changes?
o What problems, issues and concerns (if any) do you encounter in your work as
it relates directly to the work of other Departments, agencies and
organizations outside the NPB? What should be done? How? By whom?
o What is your role in the policy formulation and implementation process
within the NPB? How would you distinguish strategic policy from operational
policy matters?
o How would you describe the organizational culture and environment of your
unit? Are there major differences in organizational culture and environment
across the NPB? What are the major cultural and environmental factors which
affect your work?
o How have your role, responsibilities, duties and functions changed since you
first assumed your position?
. . ./3
IIII1I11III1IIaI1I
-3-
Which features of your work are unique within the NPB'and which distinguish
the work of the NPB from the work of other organizations?
° From your position in the organization what resources and strategies are
essential to carrying out your work in an effective* and efficient" manner?
C What standards do you use to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of
your work? If standards do not exist, then what should they be? Who should
establish the standards? How should they be used?
Are there alternate ways of performing your work and that of your unit in
order to improve effectiveness and efficiency, in terms of more timely
results? If so, what are they? Who should initiate any changes?
What mechanisms exist and are essential to ensure effective and efficient
co-ordination of work of your unit and other organizational units across the
NPB? What changes should be made? By whom?
° What are the strengths and weaknesses of the organizational structure of
your unit and that of the NPB as a vehicle for carrying out the mandate,
goals, objectives and priorities of the NPB?
u Do you have any recommendations for changes to your position, positions
reporting to you, position to which you report, other positions within your
organizational unit and your Division, and the NPB as an organization? If
so, what is your rationale for these changes? Who should initiate these
changes? When? How?
°-Other comments. What have we missed that is important for the purpose of
the Organizational Review?
*effective - doing the right thing
"efficient - doing things right
March 12, 1986
I
APPENDIX D
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
III11IIItI11I
The attainment of the goals of the NPB Organizational Review requires that NPB
members and staff are supportive of these goals and the processes proposed for
their achievement. Of the several strategies key to engendering this support,
a plan for communicating information pertinent to the origins of the Review,
the purpose and the nature of the Review process is of prime importance. If
one assumes that a successful communications strategy requires interaction
among the key players in a process, then one must ensure that the resulting
communications plan provides opportunities for feedback on the proposed
process for conducting the NPB Organizational Review. In other words, the
communications plan should identify ways and means for engaging NPB members
and staff as active participants in the Review and at the same time engender
their support as owners of the process.
The objectives of the proposed communications plan are as follows:
To provide NPB members and staff with information pertinent to:
- background events and issues which have given rise to the need for a
Review.
- the overall purpose and nature of the Review.
- the leadership and management processes of the Review.
° To introduce to the NPB members and staff, Sheila Murray, a Tap Officer, in
her role as the leader of the Review process, reporting for administrative
purposes to the Executive Director and for ongoing overall direction to the
Organizational Review Reference Group, composed of the Chairman,
Vice-Chairman and Executive Director;
C
To provide ongoing opportunities for interaction between the Review Leader
and NPB members and staff;
I
Time Frames Specified Action Person Responsible
Review Leader drafts
the memo following con-
sultation with
Executive Director and
other staff as appro-
priate.
Approval of final draft
of memo by the Chairman
prior to translation
and revision.
-2-
O To establish a schedule for periodic reporting' . on the direction and
progress of the Review process by the Chairman to NP6 members and staff.
o To provide mechanisms for the Chairman to communicate the results of the
Review process to NPB members and staff.
From these broad objectives for the communications plan flows the following
action plan.
ACTION PLAN
Week of March 3 Preparation of memo from Chairman
to NP6 members and staff out-
lining:
- background information support-
ing the need for the Review,
- overall purpose and nature of
the Review;
- the leadership roles of
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and
Executive Director in manag-
ing the Review process;
- the role of the Review Leader;
- the proposed schedule for
periodic reports on direction
and progress of Review process;
- requests for ongoing involvement
and support of NPB members and
staff in Review process.
.../3
I
I
tI
III
.1I1III
-3-
Time Frames Specified Action
Week of March 24 Distribution of approved memo in
both official languages to ail NPB
members and staff.
Consideration should be given to
the distribution of the memo to
union representatives one day prior
to the general distribution using
the normal existing union-management
mechanisms of the NPB.
Efforts should be made to .tnform
NPB members and staff in HQ and
regional offices at approximately
the same time.
Week of June 1. Preparation of memo from Chairman
30 to NPB members and staff out-
lining the overall progress of an
any changes in direction of the
Review process.
Person Responsible
Review Leader following
consultation with ap-
propriate NPB staff.
Review Leader drafts
the memo following con-
sultation with the
Executive Director and
the staff as appro-
priate.
Approval of final draft
of memo by Chairman
prior to translation
and revision.
.../4
I
-4-
Time Frames Specified Action
2. Distribution of approved memo in
both official languages.to all
NPB staff following procedures
outlined in Step 2 of March 10
memo.
Week of I. Preparation of memo from Chairman
September 29 to NP13 members and staff out-
lining the results of the Review
process.
2. Distribution of approved memo
in both official languages to
all NPB members and staff
following procedures outlined
in Step 2 of March and June
memos.
Person Responsible
Review Leader following
consultation with ap-
propriate NPb staff.
Review Leader drafts
the memo following con-
sultation with
Execut.ive Director.
Approval of final draft
of memo by Chairman
prior to translation
and revision.
Review Leader following
consultation with ap-
propriate NPti staff.
II
IIIIIIIIIII1III1
SECURITY - CLASSIFICATION - DE SECUR1TÉ
OUR FILE - N / RÉFÉRENCE
YOUR FILE - V / RÉFÉRENCE
DATE 27/03/86
APPENDIX E
-1
_J
_J
To
r- DISTRIBUTION
À
r- CHAIRMAN
FROM PRÉSIDENT DE
SUBJECT OBJET
ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW REVUE ORGANISATIONNELLE
Government Gouvernement of Canada du Canada MEMORANDUM NOTE DE SERVICE
As we all know, the National Parole Board, like many other organizations and agencies, is being buffeted by many forces for change. Of these forces, several quickly come to mind due to their potential impact on the day-to-day work of the Board. For instance, changes can be anticipated as a result of: the proposed amend-ments to the National Parole Act; court-based challenges to NPB deci-sions under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; recommendations emanating from the Program Review process under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister; new central agency policies directed towards decreasing program expenditures and increasing account-ability; increasing workload for both NPB members and staff within a con-text of decreasing resources and demands for increased efficiency; and finally, recommendations contained in a variety of studies and reports focussing on policy and operational aspects of the NPB.
Comme nous le savons tous, la Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles est soumise, l'instar d'un grand nombre d'autres organismes, à de nombreux impératifs de changement. De ces impératifs, plusieurs viennent immédiatement à l'esprit en raison de leurs répercus-sions éventuelles sur le travail quotidien de la Commission. Par exemple, des changements sont à pré-voir à la suite des circonstances suivantes: les projets de modifica-tions de la Loi sur la libération con-ditionnelle de détenus; les contesta-tions en justice des décisions de la CNLC aux termes de la Charte des droits et libertés; les recommanda-tions découlant du processus d'examen des programmes' sous la direction du Vice-premier ministre; l'adoption par les organismes centraux de nouvelles politiques axées sur la réduction des dépenses des programmes et sur l'accentuation du respect de l'obliga-tion de rendre compte; l'augmentation de la charge de travail des commis-saires et des employés de la CNLC compte tenu de ressources moins nombreuses et d'exigences en vue d'une efficacité accrue; et, enfin, les recommandations contenues dans divers rapports et études portant sur les aspects stratégiques et opérationnels de la CNLC.
GC 177
.../2
7540-21-798-8998 0
IWith this scenario in mind, we- havedecided to undertake a review of the
NPB as an organization in order toascertain its current structural andoperational capacity for successfully
meeting these challenges for change.To this end, we have seconded SheilaMurray, an officer from the TemporaryAssignment Pool (TAP) of TreasuryBoard, to conduct the OrganizationalReview. Mrs. Murray, though a new-comer to the NP13, has conductedreviews of a similar nature withinfederal government departments aswell as in organizations outsidegovernment.
During the seven month period of theReview, she will work under the over-
all direction of the OrganizationalReview Reference group, composed ofthe Chairman, Vice-Chairman andExecutive Director and will report ona day-to-day basis for administrativepurposes to the Executive Director.Specifically, Mrs. Murray has amandate to make recommendations forchange based on an examination of theorganization structure, roles,responsibilities, duties and func-tions of specified senior staffpositions within the NPB. It isessential to her mandate that Mrs.Murray have as many opportunities aspossible to meet with Board andstaff. This memo merely serves asthe first step in officially intro-
ducing her in her role as Reviewleader. Midway through and at theend of the Review process, corn-muniqués of this nature will beissued in order that you will be keptabreast of the ongoing activities andoutcomes of the organizationalReview. A copy of the OrganizationalReview Communications Plan which out-lines a schedule for ongoing com-munication pertinent to the Reviewprocess will be sent to you shortly.
-Z-
.../3
Or, étant donné cette conjoncture,nous avons décidé de procéder à unexamen de la CNLC en tant qu'organismeafin de déterminer dans quelle mesuresa capacité structurelle et opération-nelle lui permet de relever cesdéfis. A cette fin, nous avons obtenules services de Mme Sheila Murray,agent en détachement du Groupe desaffectations temporairies (GAT) duConseil du Trésor, qui dirigera larevue organisationnelle. Bien qu'elleen soit à ses débuts à la CNLC, MmeMurray s'est chargée d'examens sembla-
bles au sein de ministères fédéraux,ainsi que dans des organismes du sec-teur privé.
Au cours des sept mois que durera larevue, elle oeuvrera sous la direction
générale du groupe de référence de larevue organisationnelle, composé duPrésident, du Vice-président et duDirecteur exécutif, et, à des finsadministratives, elle rendra compte deses activités quotidiennes auDirecteur exécutif. En l'occurrence,Mme Murray a pour mandat de présenterdes recommandations en se fondant sur
l'examen de la structure organisation-nelle, des rôles, des responsabilitéset des fonctions de certains postes decadres supérieurs au sein de la CNLC.Dans le cadre de son mandat, il estessentiel que Mme Murray ait toutesles occasions voulues de rencontrerles cadres et le personnel de laCommission. La présente ne se veutqu'une première démarche visant à laprésenter officiellement dans son rôlede responsable de l'Examen. A mi-chemin et à la fin du processus, nouspublierons des communiqués de cettenature afin de vous tenir au fait des
activités et des résultats de l'Examende l'organisation. Un exemplaire duPlan de communications, qui donne unaperçu du calendrier des activitésprévues, vous sera envoyé sous peu.
1
III1III
III111,II
-3-
It is our intent to ensure that the Review process encourages participa-tion. by Board Members and staff in any proposals for organizational change directed towards strengthening the capacity of the National Parole Board to carry out its mandate.
Nous avons l'intention de veiller à ce que le processus d'examen favorise la participation des commissaires et des employés de la Commission à la mise en oeuvre de toute proposition en vue d'un changement organisationnel visant à accroître la capacité de la Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles de s'acquitter de son mandat.
•
- • /
/ Outerbridge
DISTRIBUTION
Vice-Chairman - Vice-président Senior Board Members - Commissaires principaux Executive Director - Directeur exécutif Director General - Directeur général Headquarters Directors - Directeurs de l'Administration centrale Secretary to the Board - Secrétaire de la Commission Regional Executive Officers - Agents exécutifs régionaux
^ ^ ^ man ^ ^ mug #M W
Na me
Ole Ingstrup
Bill Outerbridge
Roger Labelle
Marg Benson
Phil Young
Jean-Paul Gilbert
Roy Evans
Marc Gallant
Mac Steinburg
Roy Richards
Alphonse Beaupré
Tom Lamothe
Jack MacDonald
Kathy Louis
Non Harrison
Position
Chairman, NPB
Former Chairman, NPB
Vice-Chairman, NPB
APPENDIX F
National Parole Board
Organizational Review
Interview Schedule
Date for Interview
Chairman, Appeals Division
Board Member, Appeals Division
Board Member, Appeals Division
Senior Board Member, Atlantic Region
Board Member, Atlantic Region
Senior Board Member, Ontario Region
Board Member, Ontario Region
Board Member, Ontario Region
Board Member, Ontario Region
Board Member, Ontario Region
Senior Board Member, Pacific Region
Board Member., Pacific Region
July 9, August 7
March 25, April 18
March 24, April 14,
August 6
June 3
June 17
June 17
June 16
June 16
June 20
June 20
June 20
June 20
June 19
June 25
June 23
Comments
Name
Ed Chang
Noel Sharp
Ron Boucher
Ken Howland
Romeo Beaupré
Germaine Tremblay-CBté
Louis Laporte
Pierre liarel
Crv Williams
Serqe: Lnvallée
(3renrlan Reynolds
Position
APPENDIX F
National Parole Board
Organizational Review
Interview Schedule
Date for Interview
Board Member, Pacific Region June 23
Senior Board Member, Prairies Region June 26
Board Member, Prairies Region June 26
Board Member, Prairies Region June 26
Senior Board Member, Québec Region July 28
Board Member, Québec Region July 2B
Board Member, Québec Region July 20
Board Member, Québec Region July 28 cancelled due to
an Interim Hearing
Executive Director March 13, March 21,
July 17
Director General, IIQ Operations March 24, April 9,
July 25
RD, Atlantic Region April 8
RD, Québec Region Apri L 30
Acting RD, Ontario Region June 1`)
Director, Corporate Planning Jiily 21
Comments
^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ lm M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ M a" au ne
Norm Fagnou
Betty-Lou Edwards
Bill MacGregor
Gilles Depratto
Line Audet
Ray Simms
Jim Scrimger
John Nugent
Bernard Cloutier '
Gerry Greene
Diane McConkey
1181 MI OBI Me 11111 OS ND WO 11111 11111111 1111 ISO OM MP NO Me
Name Position
APPENDIX F
National Parole Board
Organizational Review
Interview Schedule
Date for Interview Comments
RD, Prairies Region
Acting RD, Pacific Region
RD, Pacific Region
Secretary to the Board
Director, Planning and Analysis
Director, Finance and Administration
Director, Personnel and Offical
Languages
Director, Communications
Director, HQ Operational Programs
Regional Manager/Case Preparation
Atlantic
Regional Manager/Case Supervision
Atlantic
April 15
April 16
June 4
March 24, April 11
August 25 telephone
interview
March 26, May 13
March 26, April 7
March 26, April 14,
September 12
March 25, April ID
April 8
April 8
APPENDIX F
National Parole Board
Orrlnnizational ReviPw
Interview Schedule
No me Position Date for Interview Comment.^>
Enid Holme.s Regional Administrator - Atlantic April 8
Betty Dick Senior Notifications Clerk - Atlantic April. 8
Flora Collant Verifications Clerk - Jltlantir. April 8
Michel Frappier Regional Manager/Case Preparation April 30
Québec
Guy Petit-Cl.air Regional Manager/Case Supervision April 30
Thrsri^se fieaulleu
Sonia Lacroix
Qufsbec
Rerj.ional Adminstrotor - Qucibr;c Apri l 317
Senior Notifications Clerk - Québec April 30
Paul L'Cspérance Verification Clerk - Québec July 20 - unavailable For
reschedtilod interview
Danielle Mil lette Verifinntion f'lr!r!< - Qu,S!,nc a,ily 28 -,rnnvnilahtc fnr
r, ,. i •,!:,I •,I ii,iorvi.>w
John Wilson Rrqi nnal 11rin:r,fnr /l'rr>o P rrlru•,it i un AI,i• i I
Ontario
SanJr,i l'i Ir*.rim Corraspondcnrr & Informat ion tlf'1'ir^ i- Ahr•i I;;
Ontario
^ ^ ^ mm ^ ^ ^ mm mamom ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Carol Sparling
Audrey Cavanaugh
Betty Warder
Marg Kelly
John Bissett
Len Meier
Ron Mihell
[laine Cherkewich
Lil Prysiaznuik
Fraser Simmons
April 3
April 3
not available
April 15
April 15
April 16
MIR ail IMP MO In 011ie MI ill Mit MIR III. ill lame es. ale MI OP ale
Name Position
APPENDIX F
National Parole Board
Organizational Review
Interview Schedule
Date for Interview Comments
Regional Manager/Case Supervision
Ontario
Regional Administrator - Ontario
Correspondance and Information Officer
Ontario
Secretary to Senior Board Member -
Ontario
Regional Manager/Case Preparation
Prairies
Regional Manager/Case Supervision
Prairies
Regional Administrator - Prairies
Correspondance and Information Officer
Prairies
Verification Clerk - Prairies
Regional Manager/Case Preparation
Pacific
April 3
April 3
April 15
April 15
APPENDIX F
National Parole Board
Organizational Review
Interview Schedule
Name Position Date for Interview
Gerry Ayotte Regiona.l Manager/Case Supervision April 16
Pacific
Sharone Young Regional Administrator - Pacific April 16
Donna Flessa Secretary to Senior Board Member - April 16
Pacific
Evelyn Gaudreau Verifications Clerk - Pacific April 16
Jean Sutton Senior Advisor on Professional March 27, April 11
Standards and Development
Peter Cummings Policy Analyst, Planning and Analysis Ju]y 4
Terry Kennedy Chief, Financial Management April 2
Vince Nadon Chief, Administrative Services March 27
Liz Phillips Chief, Personnel and O.L. Audit and not interviewed
Policy
Elaine Shaw Chief, Staff Relations and fluman March 27, April 9
Resources
Earl I1t3nratty Chief, Personnel Operations March 27
Comments
to NO i M as ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ w so on ^ no w 0-0 "a No
OR MOW MM ^ 1 11440 ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ samomon
APPEP®IX F
National Parole Board
Organizational Review
Interview Schedule
Name Position Date for Interview
Don Tully Planning and Systems Officer July 7, July 8
Coordinator, Management Committee
Paul Connolly Chief, Clemency and Pardons
Dave Johnston Chief, Case Analysis and Review April 4
Jeanette Ackroyd Chief, Access to Information and April 28
Privacy
Mike MacNaughton Editor, Communications April 2
Andy Roy Chief, Media Relations and Public April 4, September 12
Affairs
Maurice Charbonneau Senior Legal Counsel, NPB August 7
Cathy Gainer Management Practices and Special April 23, April 29
Projects Officer
Sheila Faure Project Manager, Program Evaluation April 23, May 12
Mike Halko CAPP - Special Projects April 2, April 29
Gordon Pinder Deputy Commissioner Offender Policy July 31
and Prorlram Development, CSC
Comments
APPENDIX F
National Parole Board
Organizational Review
Interview Schedule
Name Position Date for Interview Comments
Dru Allen
Andrew Graham
Joan Nuffield
Richard Zubrycki
Marie-Eve Marchand
Rhéal Leblanc
Fred Gibson
Jean Charron
Willy Gibbs
Clifford Scott
Director, Community Release Programs, July 30
CSC
Director General, Corporate Policy and August 5
Planning, CSC
Director, Strategic Policy, Ministry July 24
Secretariat
Director, Policy Analysis and Support, July 24 unavailable for
Ministry Secretariat scheduled interview
Policy Analyst, Ministry Secretariat July 25
Commissioner, CSC July 22
Deputy Solicitor General July 23
Assistant Deputy Solicitor General July 23 .
Director General, Correctionul July 22
Operations, CSC
Assistant Commissioner, Administrative July 23
Policy and Services
110) UM 11111 Ole 111111 fill Ili Ile OM IIIIII lilt Ill. fle
^ ^ ^ ^ M go so as no ift =0 moo an do so aw Fft va so
Name
Dan Kane
Arthur Trono
Ron Stewart
Marc Eliany
Linda Golberg
Greg Irwin
Hélène Chevalier.
Dorothy Wardle
Bill Hackett
Bob Young
Position
APPENDIX F
National Parole Board
Organizational Review
Interview Schedule
Date for Interview
Director General, Offender Programs,
CSC
Regional Deputy Commissioner, Ontario
Region, CSC
Correctional Investigator, CSC
Statistical Liaison Officer
Research Officer
Statistical Liaison Officer
Executive Assistant to Chairman, NPB
Temporary Board Member
Ontario•Region
Temporary Board Member
Ontario Region
Temporary Board Member
Prairies Region
July 22
July 16
not available for an
interview
July 30
July 30
July 30
October 7
August 6
August 10 unavailable for
schedul.ed interview
Augiist 18
Comments
Name
Marcia Clark
Joël ilartt
Guy Bureau
Michael Young
Lynne Connell
Dave MacKeen
Melvin MacQuaid
Position
Temporary Board Member
Prairies Region
Temporary Board Member
Québec Region
Temporary Board Member
Québec Region
Temporary Board Member
Pacific Region
T emp o ra ry Board Member
Pacific Region
Temporary Board Member
Atlantic Region
Temporary Board Member
Atlantic Region
APPENDIX F
National Parole Board
Organizational Review
Interview Schedule
Date for Interview
August 10
August 18
August 20
August 19
August 25
August 25
unable to contact either
at office or at home
Comments
^ ^ ^ to ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 01% so so so go Am an Op 4W as
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
CHAIRMAN I
VICE-CHAIRMAN
CHART I
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION NI
OPTION fil
r--1-- Recisnal ,Di , ector !AtIl-tic
Regional Director Quebec
Regional Director Ontari o
Regional Director Pacific
Regional Director Prairies
Director General H.Q. Operations
Secretary te the Board
MI MI 811. re an ass au aum 11. US IRO OM
if ECUTIVE DIRECTOR I
1
ADUNISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
--F r- rcrtor.
Personnel E Official Languages
_____i_ Director Corporal ,' Mannino E Management Pradices
Director Finance I; Administration
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZAfIONAL REVIEW
VICECRAIRMAN
EXECUIIVE DIRFCTOR
f IsIRiw1
CIIAIRMAN
1ASSISTANT
'_1-
Regional
Director
Atlantic
flegional Rrqional flcgional RegionalDirector Direclor Director DirectoOue6ec llntario Prairies Pacific^
IDirector
Director, Appeal Ilu n an ResourceCleeency C Pardons Servicrs
CDART 2
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RECOMNENDATION ,V1
OPTION 2
-' ---'--- '-----t^--llirector
DireetorAd.ini;trative C
Oeveir.p.entfinancial Service• Corporate
G ScrvicexS"
, as
Dire tor
lnfor.atiun ;iyr.tcu• iand Service,
^ ^ !ls ^► ► ^^ ^ ^ ^ ON vft/^ NO ww"twomw1m
go Aft so w M1 so i^ ^ ^ ^ a" AW as we M go Koo go me
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
VICT É-CNAiRMAN
I CNAIRMANt J
IEXECUTIVC DIRECTOR
_ ADMINISIRATIV^
ASSISTANT
-------- ^
CHART 3
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION //1
OPTION /h3
DIRECT^
CORPORATE MANAGEMENI
SYSTEMS AND SERVICES
t-`iAegional Regional Regional
;Director Oirector Director
L1:1 i ebeOntario
Regional
Director
Prairies
Regionall
Directo,Jl
PaciFicDirector, Appeal
Clemency C Pardons
Director
Numan Resourre
Services
7I __ E1^
-^- - -_- - --^ ---Ûirector Director Direr,tor •Administrative C Devclop n ent InFar.ation SystcmsFinancial Service - Corporate and Services
Systeaz t Service:
^-- -
NATIONAI. PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
ICE-C11A1RNAN
CIIAIRNAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
,---
_ AONINISIRAEIVE
ASSISTANT
CIIART 4
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
IIECONNENDATION #1
CpIION #4
DIRECTOR GENERAL
CORPORATE MANAGEMENT
SYSILNS AND SERVICES
Negional
L_Regional
Director
Quebec
IRegional
Director
Ontario
LARegional
Director
Prairies
1
Director, Appeal
Cle.ency C Pardons
r-____ 1------
Dtrectnr
Resource R.inaycoent I
Service^
LSECT.I
Director Drrrrtor •.
Develnp.entloi
Syte.s
Corporate d Services
Systees F, Scrvires
lm m •^ ^ ^^ 00 M o. M .s ew am .M 310 s M 1110 . lm .r
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
CHAIRMAN
VICE-CHAIRMAN-1
CHART 5
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION #1
OPTION #5
Regional Regional
Director Director
Atlantic Quebec
L [ Director, Appeal
Clemency C Pardons
Regional
Director
Ontario
egional
irector
rairies
egional
irector
aciFic rf-tirector
Information Systems
ad Services
mu »le as gee au aim sat gm Ime aik ale an Ire IN Ole INS
Ex_ECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR GENERAL
CORPORATE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS AND SERVICES
1
Director
Administrative E
Financial Service
"1 Director
Human Resource'
Services
— Director
Development
Corporate
Systems C Services
------------ - -
_I SECRETARY
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZAiIONAL REVIE4
Vice-Chairaan
CIIARf 6
DIRECIOR, HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES
RECONMENDAfION Ni
OPTION #1
Sysleas and Services
L--Iflirector, Ilurran Resource
Services (New)
E:isting position - Director
Personnel C Official Languages
F---f_-
lChief, PersonnctIO,L, ^ladil andiPo1i•:y
'----- .._ .
Chief, Staff Relations
and Illuan Resources
t
---T-- -'-Director Adainistrativc -andFinancial Services
CIIAIRMA
--^
Executive Director '
J nïiiï .JJJ
rectnr General, Corporate Nenageacn
Nf
,- Secretary ^
Director Developnent
Corporate System: G Services
._ ^- -
Chief Personnel Co-Ordinator
Operations Official Lan
g
ua es
NI
^--Director Infnraation
Spstcas and Services
^ ^ ^ ^ lm Mo ^ ^ M Mal ^ ^ M mla im MW ma M M
Diiïaor Administrative
and Financial Services
Chief, Staff Relations C
Human Resources
Professiona] Development
Training Unit
asie lie rani as ore 1110 Mg IRO IOW 0111 all MN lie 11110 1111111 ON lab lale
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
CHAIRMAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR]
CHART 7
DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION #1
OPTION #7
VICE -CHAIRMii,--
Oirector Human Resources
Services (New)
'Secretary
1 rADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT'
DIRECTOR GENERAL CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SYSFEMS AND SERVICES1
Secretaryi
Director Development
Corporate Systems C Services
)
Director Information
Systems and Services
Chief Personnel 0.1. Audit and
Policy
[—Chief, Personne/ Operationsl
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZAIIONAL REYIfN
YICE-CilA1RMAN
- -^ ---
Director Human Resources
Services (New)
I
hieF PersonnelAudit and
policy^..--- - -^
L Sccretary
Chief, Staff Relations C
Human Resources
CIIART 0
DIRECTOR_IIUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES
RFCOMMFNDATION #1
CXECUTIYE DIRECTOq OPTION /I3-F-
ADMINISTRAIIVf. ASSISTAMI
DIRICTOR GENERAL CORPORATE MANAGE MLNT SYSIEMS AND SERVICES.
Secretary
D u•ector m^n^strattvc ' 1 - --Otrcator ^eveTopeen[and financialServices Corporate Systeas C Services^
------^-^
Chief, Personnel Operationsi T'roFessional Developoent - -_^Training Unit
CHAIRMAN
^
Director Information
Systems and Servicesl
^ ^ ^ 100 lu fue lm «a lm'^* un WM no mm t^ ^ ^ ^ lm
'^ ^ M go' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ M %or me' je M
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
Vice-Chairman
10irector Iluean Resourre
Services
L --- -
Director Administrative and
Financial Services
Secretary
ClIA IRXAMM
EXECDTIVE DIRECTOR
CHART 9
DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE C FIIIANCIAI. SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION #
OPTION #1
H ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
CIRECTOR GENERAL CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND SEP.VICES
ecretary----J
Director Developuent Corporate
L
Director Information SystemsSystems and Services Services
^ ^ _^ ^ - ---- --- -^
Chl ief, Financial Management Services ^ Chief, Administrative Service1L
ClIARIMO
DIRECTOR ADMINISTRAIIVE . AND EINANCIAt abuccs
in-cow:maim PI
OPTION . 0
I EXECUTIVE DIRECIORI
.1- . Fiiiiitriiiii-Cii:ii;isi-Ailil
[ DIRECTOR GEHERAl_CORPORAFE . MANAGEMENI r.YSIElltl E SERVICES 1
L CHAIRMAN
--- 1-
_ Director Development 1
I Corporate Synteon C ServicesI i Director Information'
Syntens C Services I
NAIIONAl...PAROLUIDARD URGANIZATIONAL . ITEVII.W
r, I a;.."-ih:- •
'..-:orne Services
1 financial
....-,-; 0.„ n i Srrvice
VICE-CHAIRMAN
[
Oi ."-r-ec .t. o-r—iiimini"; trati v—e- antli
Financial Service^. .. .._ . I
Chief, Records Management
Systems C S ,.rvices (New) ChioF, Administrative Serviren I
I . _
11111 «111 MO ant Ma ime 11111 1Me elk um lee ma ail MI MI lag
lm-lm ^ Çu M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ffl 09M .^ M aim mu 'qp M
VICf-CHATRMAN
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD DRGANIZATIDNAL REVIEW
CIIAIRMAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CIIART //il
DIRECTDR ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION 1/1
OPTION #2
ADNTN[STRAiIYE ASSISIANI
DIRECTDR GENERAL CDRPDRATE MANAGEMENI SYSTENS E SERYICE^
Secretar^
irector Human
jtesource ServicesDirector Administrative and
Financial Services
IDirector Developnent
Corporate Systens C Services
IDirector Information
Systeas E Services
hief, Financial Chief,Chief, Administrative Servicesana e^ent Service
Corporate Records
9 Systems G Services (Nev) - ^ ^- 1
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
Y[CE-CIlAIRMpN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
CIIART 12
DIRECTOR DEYELOPMENI
CORPORATE SYSTEMS C SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION yl
OPTION #1
BIRECTOR GENERAL CORPORATE MANAGEMENI SYSiEMS AND SERViCES IIEY^--. __.-- --- - ---
----^Secretary
Director Ilu.an Resource Servicesl Director Ad.inistrati Director Development Corporateand Financial Services Systems C Services (New) tl
Existing Position:Direr.tor
Corporate Planning t Management: Practices'- --^ ------..._ i
OCE Operator Secrctary^-^ `^ ---- ---^
1_
--Manage.r.nt
C Special Projects I Planning and- lü ystens
CIIAIRMAN
Progra n ^
Evaluation
Director Information Syste.^
and Services (New)
a^ - MI, am,^ ^ *» '71M M me %* 98 -no M wo au mm ne l1* i
Director Human
!Resclrce Services [
Director Administrative E
financial Services 1 Director Develoment Corporate
Systems E Services (New)
Fr7rotaril
FS irector Information 1 ystems E Services
I OCE Operator I
arlib IOW IN 01le MO ale MO am ale um as sue tom re «la ale
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEN
CHAIRMAN'
VICE-CHAIRMAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR1
CHAfti 13
DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT - CORPORATE
SYSTEMS AND SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION h 1
OPTION #2
1 lidministrative Assis-tang
Director General Corporate Management Systems E Services'
Secretary '
Chief, Corporate
Systems E Services Development
(Hew) fChief, Policy, Procedures E Ile%rarch Development
(new)
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORLANIZAT10t1A1. RCVIEW CIIART 14
DIRECTOR IILVELOPMENT - CORPOR1TE
SYSIENS C SERVICES
f VICE-CIIAIRMAM
Secretar
E%ECUTiVE DIRECIO
RCCOMMENDATION #1
OPTION #3
_Adninistrat-ive Assistan[ i
Oir^ccnr Ceneral Coraorace Manone"ént Jvstens anA S^rvices ,
- r=. ^- -','rector Hunan rirector Administrative-C•5ourcr Service.sj IFinancial Services
CIIAIRMAN
[DirecLor Develupnent Corporatef
S--stems C Services
L--- •------i
OCE Operator __ -- __ ,ertary
I-_-
l- --- -
1_r
ject ProjectProj ect Pro i Ilea.---- Tcan lean
,gum 4-NB? ^ ^ ^ ^: no "a go; ^ an ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ us
_-3_.
j Director In(oraation
Systens G Service-,
f"^ M amr 'm 'ma j»I' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ .00 am 00
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONALREVIEW
CNAIRMAN
Vice-Chairean
-- T- - ^ ZDiro,tor Ilurran Resourcc Director Administrative &Se-^ice, J Financial Services
CHART 15
DIRFCTOR, INFORMATION SYSTEMS C SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION # I
OPTION #1
Executive Director
_-[ Administrative Assistant
IDirector General Corporate Management Systeos and ServicesT----------'-------- ------------
-Ser,retnry---L _--_ --- -J
Di rec or DeVeiopment
Corporate Systems C Servir.es
-i---I ----Director Information
C Services (New)l1!L12 ms 1T-_--__----
rl D
- -_^? Systems OFFicer APIS, OM;MIS
--__-_ I liaison C
Development.Ilücc...
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORANIZATIONAL REVIEM
Vice-Chairmar1
1CIIA[RMAN---_ ^
Executive Dirr.ctor
^-- -^-.-. --
CHAR T 16
DIRECTOR, INFORMATION SYSTEMS C S[RVIC[S
RFCONM[NDATION NI
OPTION #2
Adainistrative Assistant
'-'----------- --rDl rector feneral .Corporate Management Systems and 'Service s--r-----.--------.---- ---.-- ----
ecreEar•ÿ--'-
--C - ^birector Human Resource Director Administrative Ei
^Services F-nancial Serviceslt__-__ -_ C Director Development
CorporateSystems C ServiceslnForaation Sy^lems L
Servicrs RFFi(rr
qM^ ^- me
Vice-Chairman SECRETARIAL
SERVICES H_1 Senior Board Nemilier
'egu ar :oar tiers
emporary :oar. em.ers
Community :oar. em.ers
i CHAIRMAN
OM 111W Ile Mg »a as am as le sio toe re in ate doe us ai ame
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW CHART l/ _ REGIONAL DIRECTOR - ATLANTIC
RECOMMENDATION # 2
OPTION #1
EXECUTIVE DIRECIORI
FEIONAL DIRECTORI
'SECRETARY '
Regional Manager 1 Case Preparation 1
Regional Manager
Case Supervision Regional
Administrator
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGAMI2ATIOMAI RE4IEY
SECREIARIAL
SCRVICES
CIIAIRNAMI
EXECUtIVE DIRECTOR
REfi10NAL D[RECTOR
SFCRETApY
rlegional Manager J J Regional Manager1 Case Preparation Case Supervision
CIiART 18
REGIONAI. DIRECTOR - QUEOlC
RECONNENOAiIOM p 2
OPTION q1
EReg1onal
Ad!inistrator
aw) sm ^'^ ^ ^ so ow "a Im am go, ow so
00 ^ ^ ^ am M* imp '^ ^ ^ ^ ^ as Ift
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
CRAIRMAN
SECREiARIAL
SERVICES
Vice- atrman
enior oar e^ sr
egu ar oar ea ers
emporary Board ea ars
Couunity Board ea ers
}
I
1
CNART 19
REGIONAI. DIRECTOR - ONTARIO REGION
RECOMMENDATIDN # 2
OPTION /(1
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
IREGIONAL DIRECTDR
,- SECRETARY
Regional Ma
Case Preparation
IRegional Manager
Case Supervisionflegional
Adaini^trator
SECRETARIAL
SERVICES
I—I Vice-Chairman
F-1 Senior Board Member
L_1 Regular Board.Meabors Till temporary Board Meabers
L—I Community Board Nembers
CHARI 20
REGIONAL DIRECTOR - PRAIRIES
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
!CHAIR/IAN I RECOMMENDATION 2
OPTION HI
Ii 'Regional Manager
I Case Supervision
Correspondence C
Information Officer 1
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'
REGIONAL DIRECTOR!
SECRE TARY
Regional Manager
Case Preparation Regional
Adsinistrator I
law lie me mar eu um ea JIMMJI 11ffle an al> Mille
^ ^ ,mw M aw M, 'ffl '"0 M A* un mm 4M lm MW 4M 'à»
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANI2ATIONAL REVIEW
SECRETARIAL
SERVICES
Vice- airman
enior oar ea er
egu^Tr^a^elriers
e@porary oar en ers
L-4 Conunity oar e n ers
I
I
I
CRART 21
REGIONAL DIRECTOR - PACIFIC
RECOMMENDATION N 2
OPTION #1
CRAIRMAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
REGIORAL DIRECTOR
^ SECP.ETARY
Regional Manager
Case Preparation
IRegional Manager
Case SupervisionRegional
Administrator
NAIIONAL PAROLE 130ARD ORGANI7ATIONAL REVIEN
SFCRETARIAL
SF[T VICf S
Case Review
lean
-V^ceiT- aira-
cntor oar e n er
egu ar oar e n ers
eaporary oar e n ers l^ f.ouun^ty Uoar e n ers
Regional CaseManager, (Ilew)
Case Review
Tea n
Vorrrspïin e
Inforaation Officer
CIIAIRMAM
EXECUTIVE DIRECTORI
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
SECREIARy
rôicssiona eve op nenE-- -
L Publie Edueation OfFicer (Nev)^
mnef 22
REGIONAL DIRECTOR - ATLANTIC
RECOMNENDAlION N 2
OPTION #7
^--ana9er R gg io p a
Services {New)^
Adainis^e Records Infnraation Syste n sE Support Unit j and ServicesServiees Unit TeeLnician
^^^ low A-m" ^V" on- up owl so 41M so no on
CUART 23
REGIONAL DIRECTOR - QUEBEC
RECOMMENDATION 1 2
OPTION #2
CHAIRMAN
rillice -Chairman SECREIARIAL SERVICES
enior Board Member
__I Regular Board Members
lemporary Board Members
Community Board Members
EXECUTIVE
Regional Case
Manager (New)
1 Cane Review r
Regional Case
Manager (New)
Case Review
Team
Lorrespojience Information Officer
1 Records Information Systems
Unit and Services
Technician
Administrative
C Support
Services Unit
es Mu Imo Ile are me am aim Am aw is ON eM1
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
DIRECTOR!
1 REGIONAL DIRECTOR!
SECRETARY
Professional' Uevetopment
C Public Education Officer (New)
Manager Regional Services (New)
FS ECREIARIAL
Sf.RVICES
1Regional Case -
Nanager (Mev)
Case Revieu
Tea•
^îce- a^raan
en^or oar e^er
egu a-1 -0-0a r e• ers
eaporary oar e n ers
y
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEN
I--
I
Commun ity Boar e n ers
Regional Case
LNana er (Ner)
Case Reriew
Teaa
orrespondenceT-
]nforaation Officer
CRAEkMAN^
P n
L Public Educntion Offieer (Ner)^
SECRETARY
T^ess^ona eve To a-"--
CIIART 24
RfG10NAL OIRECIOR - ONTARIO
RECONRENOAiION #2
OPTION #2
IManager R gg iona$ervsces `Nev)
Adainistralive Record1"foraation SysteasL $upport ^ Onit ^ and Services
Services Unit technician
iN" <ow
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR1
REGIONAL DIRECTOR:
SECRETARY
Protessiona) Development
E Public Education Officer (New)
Administrative
C Support
Services Unit 1
CHART 25
REGIONAL DIRECTOR- PRAIRIES
RECOMMENDATION #2
OPTION #2
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
CHAIRMAN
I Lorrespondence t
Information Officer
1 Manager Region9 Services (New)
Information Systems
and Services
Technician
[-
SECRETARIAL
SERVICES r --J- Vice-Chairman
HA Senior Board Umber
44 Regular Board Members
Temporary Board Members
Community Board Nembe-Fi
1 Regional Case
Nana er (New)
Case Review
Tea.
Regional Case
Manager (New)
1 Case Review
I Team Records
Unit
el> ley +my ell an *la erg mre lie Ile aft te ae die mar elif MO MI
MAIIOMAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANI7A1Ii1MAL REy1fM
SECRf1ARlAL
S[RVICFS
^c^Tiairran-------------1-
--- _^CIIARMAM
enior oar en e-6 r-- - IY-----'--'-
egu ar oar e n ers
e-porary oar ca ers
Co^un^ty Ooar e• ers _____
Reqianal Case Regional Casef-UO-Fre ence
Manager ( New) ] Nana er(New) Information Dfficer j
-^--Case Review l
caseReview
Tea• J Tea•
^FCIITLVE DIRECIOR^
LREGIOMAL DTRECiO,
CIIART 26
REG[OMAt DIRECTOR - PACIFIC
R[CORN[NnAT1oN / 2
OPTION N2
SECREIARfl
ra essiona ïlévéTp^e'T---
C Public Education 0fficer (Me ^I^anayer R ç9 ioServices `Xew
Administrative RecordsSupport Unit
Services Unit
-^'--InFor^ation Systees
and Services
Iccbnician
^ ^"!► ^ ^ 4MW1 ^po. ^i ^ a^ ^ MW a^ !M "a MW loop "a *a âo
'Wi► a-aw ••O 1j1« INJO ^- Mo, t`rr -^By .à.* A" .* dm Olq u.► f»^ B* dm leu$
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIIATIONAL REVIEW
SECRETARIAL
SERVICES
CIIAIRMAN
CHART 27
REGIONAL DIRECTOR - ATLANTIC
RECOMMENDATION p 2
OPTION #3
Regional Case
Manager (Nev)
Case CaseRev^er Review
i Ofiicar Officer
Case CaeeRevie. Reviev
Tean Tean.
(orC-respon ence
Information officer
SECRETARY
Pro essiona keve opn en
t Public Education Officer (New)
Administrative
L Support
Services Unit
I
Manager R qg ional^Servlces `Ilev) I
Records
Unit
I
Fc or
nation Syste n s
Services
hnician-
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW umni 28
REGIOMAL DIRECTOR _ QREREC
RECOMMEMDAIION #2
onion #3
WiCe-Chairean SECRETARIAL
SERVICES egi---niior-7117a7d Member'
Regular Board Members
I Temporary Board Members
Coamunity Board Neabers
Records
Unit
—
:gm n sico. -1 [F
rotessiona) Development E Public Education Officer Pled
fInforslation Systeasl and Services
Technician
Administrative E Support Services Unitj
lei el* 1131 MU> Ile Me !MI Mit 111111 1111» •Ink
'EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR1
!REGIONAL DIRE-atilt
[SECRETARY
I r egional Case I orrespon.ence Manager (New) . Information Officer
-II 1 I Case 1
Cr Re•iew iew Team Tea,
^ ^ ^ ^ to ^ am awl no ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ go oft am a*
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REYIEN
CHAIRMAM
SECRETARTAL
SERVICES
N
L-1
tcY e-Tai.an
Senior Board e• er
egu ar 'oar e• ers
e.porary Board en ers
Coa.unity oaÉira-Ae-OFers
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
iREG10NAL DIRECTOR
Regional Case
Nanager (Nev)
Case Case
Revier Review
Tea n Tea nI
SECRETARY
orrespon ence ro essiona eve op.enInFor.ation OFficer Public Education Officer (New)
CHART 29
REGIONAL DIRECTOR - ONTARIO
RECONIIENOATION #2
OPTION #3
Administrative Records [Information Syste.sC Support Unit and ServicesServices Unit Technician
Nanayer R gg ionaServices LNev)
NATIONAL PAROLE ROARO ORGANI2ATIONAL REVIEW
SECItE IAR IALSERVICES_
icc-CFai^ian
en^ôroârâ elT ier }
CIIAIRNAN
egu r oar c• ers
e^porary oar en ers ^_
Couun^ty Ooar er ers
EXECOTIVE DIRECTOR
LRFGTOMAL DIRECIOR
^- SECRCTARy
Reyicnal Cast^
Ra^ageTr (^ew)
Cas! Case
ReYitY RlVIlV
Team Tea n
orrespon ence
Enfor^atiun OFficer
CHART 30
AMORAL DIRECTOR - PRAIRIES
RECOMMENl1A110N #2
OPTION N3
Pro Fesstona eve ôp^en - Nana9er Re g ionaE Public Education Officer (New) Servtces (New)
1Ad^inistrative
C Support
Services Uniti
[nfornation Syste n s
Jand Services
ledmician
^ ^ -no ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a* /^ ^ ^, "M em "x» «-M MOI ffl& 4010
Vice-Chairman SECRFIAR1AL
SERVICES Senior Board Member
Regular Board Members
41 Temporary Board Members
__4 Community Board Members
Regional Case
Manager (New)
Case f Review 1 Team
Case
Review
Team
Lorrespondence L.
Information Officer
Administrative
E Support
Services Unit I
Manager Regional Services (New)
Records
Unit
Information Systems
and Services
Technician
dub low .fflir our *It aa 411111k Ile ame. , um an au> ele gliee
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
CHAIRMAN
1EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR1
j REGIONAL DIRECTOR'
F- TATI 171
CHART 31
REGIONAL DIRECTOR - PACIFIC
RECOMMENDATION #2
OPTION #3
Protessiona) Development
E Public Education Officer (New)j
MAlIONAI PAROIE DOARO ORGANIIAIPONAL REVIfN
^S[CRI IARIAL
St RV)Lf S
îcé-CÜa^én an __ 1
Chainan, Apptal on_^
egu ar oar e n ers ___^_-,
_r enporary oar AF-7-'.'s -- t_. -
CIIAIRMAN^
f- -- -- ---- - -fChief, Cle nency C Pardonsl
Secretary
feaisor I Tea n Supevisor Tean Supervisor I Secretary C^Cleaency C Pardonsl
1Cle n ency L Pardons C1enency C Pardons Lrivacy Clerk
EXECOTIVC O1REC10R
1DIP.ECTOR, APPEAL,CLEM^MCY C PARDONS
SECRf IARy ^
CIIART 32
DIREf,TOR_ APPf.AL, CIENEMCy L PARDONS
RECOMNEN!)AIfON N 2
OPTION #1
^^ChieF, Case Analysis
-- {Secrttary
-j __ - - - ^..-"--_
---1--Case Manageaent Case M
_anageeent Lase NanageaentAnalys -t Analyst Analyst-_______ f_ =l D=
*»- rmm "^ ^ me 113L' ^ *» '-0-M ** Ime 400' ^ ^ ^ ^ "M le* M*
^ ^ 4w OW, ^W OW `^ ^ 4W A* MW 40' 4W 4* AMP *i* 00 AN& 400
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REYIEN
SECRETARIAI.
SERVICES
ice- air^an
Chairman, Appeal, Clemencyand Pardons Division
Regular Board Remberi
7eiporary oar eo ers
CNAiRMAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR, APPEAL,
CLEMfNCY & PARDONS
SECRFTARY
Secretary
t
------"-' -.r--- ---
Correspolndence CInformation Office
4..W) i
Case Revie^ Case Revie^ Case
ISupervisor Supervisor Sub^ission
Cle^ency t
[Par
E Control
Pardons Pardons Clerk
: Case Manager
I Cleaency C Pardons (new)
I
"I nager Divisional
Services (New)
Casé
Records
Unit
Support
Services
Unit
CIIART 33
DIRECTOR, APPEAL, CLEMENCY E PARDONS
RECOMMENDAIION /
OPTION 112
Professional DevelopmentE Pu lic Education OFfic[Heu
r
1
Case Review
Officer
Appeal
Case Manager Appeal
(New)
--^_
Case Review
Officer
Appeal
Secretary
Case Rev1eY^
Of fi cer
Appeal
Case Manager Clemency E Pardons (new)
Leiftibli, --eWTI.,—] I
CLEM NCY E PARDONS
_ . ..___Ir Sr CR (ir7B371
[ Manager Divisional Services (New)
ase---- ] I spi Services Unit
-------
Records
Unit
[Secretary]
-.ase eeview-uper.isor :lesenry E
•ardoss
Case Review Supervisor Cleoency E Pardons
I Case Manager Appeal I (Neu)
1
I Officer 1 10ffiror Appeal Appcal
Case Review Of f i cer App ea I
_
Case Review Case Review
Chairman, Appeal, Cleaency and Pardons Division
—Regular Moard Members
emporary :oar ■ il-Fthers 1
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
1—CRAIIMAT.11
CXECIIIVC multi]
CHART 34
DIRECTOR APPEAL, CL ( MENCY E PARDONS
RECOMMENDATION #2
OPIION #3
SECRETARIAL SERVICES - - - - — - — — —
Ille 4•111 watt, lie 'gar iwat al IN» Ile 1101, IMII 11•1*
OW 4W +W OW 406 MW As1 iM 4W 8* 4W, 4"j i^ ^► ^!^` ^► ^ a^l^ a^ll^
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANTZAiIONAL REVIEW
SENIOR BOARU
MEMRERS
REGULAR BOARD
MEMBERS
TEMPORARY OOARD
MEMOERS
COMMUNITY BOARD
MEMBERS I
YICE-CIIAIRMAN ^-^
CIIAIRMAN APP[AL
DIVISION
REGULAR BOARD IIEMBERS
APPEAL DIVISION
TEMPORARY BOARD MEMBERS
APPEAL DIVISION
CIIAIRMAN
Ad-inistrative
Assistant
17[Secretary
Secretartal
Services
Senior
Legal
Counsil
Legal
Counsel
CHAR 1 35
CHAIRMAN
RECOMMENDATION #
OPTION #1
Executive
Assistant
Secretary
Executiv
Director
Director
Communication
rUeputy
IChief, Media Relations
C P airs
Yriter
Public Affairs OfFicer
râ^ecf-DfFici-r1
Adn inistrativc Aseistan!^
SfNIOR ODARD
M[MOERS ^--+
R(6!lLAR 00AR0MCMBENS
ICKPORAAY BOARD
M(MRERS
COMMUNJIY OOARp ^ !M[MO[RS J
VICE CIIAIRMAX
CIIAIRMAN APP[at ---
DIVISION
REGULAR BOARD NrM BERSAPPEAL DIVISION
IlEMPOfiARY BOARD NIMBI_
WEAL DIVISION
IIA110NA1 PAR0t1 NIlARO ORGAR17A110NA1 RfVIfY
I
Ad.inistratirr
Asaistant _
^srcr.e,rY
Sprr.ial
Advisor
Accesa to lnforoatinnl Srcrrtarial
^C Privacy Officer I Srraicra
-^----_._ L; 5¢r.... .., ,
---- Il^riracY Clerl
I Atr► rrEPO Of
icer Officar
aoadancee
Corraspondance ^SecretrrY
CMAIRMAN-_^--
Senior
Legal
Counail
L,gal
Counsel
Special Case
Inguirr Dfficcr
I.I...q
CHAR T 36
CIIAIRMAN
R(COMM(NDAl10N /
OPTION 12
Eaecutire
Secretary
- ---t_ _Esecutire Dir.ctorOirector Coa.unications,
i Secratar
Falnaatra^ivr
A.rIatant
I -oputT
j,^
Cdief, aadla Rrlatian^
L PpA1ic Affaira
'--IPS- -^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ q w , ^ ^ ^ on ^ ^ -Amw
L KARAGER ASE stRvicrs]
Secretary
Executive Correspondence Officer
Correspondence Secretary
Special Case Inquiry Officer
'Access to Information it Privac Officer
I ATIP I I AT I P Officed 'Officer
tary I Linrf tar Y_I
CHART 37
CHAIRMAN
RECOMMENDATION 1/ 3
°PIMA 13
NAIIONAE PAROLE BOARD °AGM/MORAL RIMY
'
Administrative Assistant
1 U----
I Secretary
'
Secretarial Services
Senior Legal Connie
77-71. Legal C 1
Executive Secret ary l Executl Director
Secretaryl
Project Officer Clerk
SPECIAL ASSISTANT MEDIA RELATIORS z PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Special Advisor
Aommistamtvl ASSISTANT
MARAGER. PURER--; IRFORMATION PROGR
Program DevelopmetH Officer
Progran Development
Public Affairs Officer
alle lei AIM lele eigh allt gib» 41.1 II» es ati ffli ai fia ms
SENIOR BOARD [ACI n Î n i S t ra tIVC ASSISt
MEMBERS
VICE-CHAIRMAN ' — '
REGULAR BOARD
CHAIRMAN APPEAL DIVISION 1_
MEMBERS
LE_MPORARY BOARD," MEMBERS
110. MMUITITY BOARD [ ME ABERS
Privacy Clerk
REGULAR BOARD MEMBERS APPEAL DIVISION
TEMPORARY BOARD MEMBERS APPEAL DIVISION
RAIIOYAI PAn0i1- ROARU ORf.AN1lA110NAL RfYIEN
:.SfNiOR OLIARII
LNfM0ER5
IfNP08ART BOARD
MfN0ER5 ^
n1idlR_1SINÀf1V_E it^5Î51ANT
^ . _ - - ... . _ _ _. ..
RCGULAR BOARD
ME NRCRS
At ERS
CGNNUNIIY OOARD
j-
^__YICE CIlA1RNAN___
CIIAIRNAN APPfAI
DIVISION
REGULAR BOARD prKIIERSAPPEAL DIVISION
IEMPORARY BOARD M
APPEAL DIVISION
--._-1
^ L'l1AIRNAN^
---1_ ..
Adoinsstrativs
Assistant
SecretarY
----_-^pccial
A^Ivisor_Senior
Leqal
Counai!
Accesa to Inforaatio Sretar e
ft PrivacY Officer Se
ec
nicea
:SItinTTART- _ _ _^-^- PrivarY Clerk
AfIP j Af1P
Officer Office.
Erecutive
Correspondente
Officer
Correspendance
Secretary
special Casa
Inyuirl Officer
- J
I ,ILERK
la^Cowasl
Oirector, Public lnforoatioaProgren^.C Media Relations
Clsrk
Radia Relatlcnd
Officer I
Proyru
tloeelopeent
Oflicer
CIIART 30
CNAIRMAN
RECONMENDAIIONH3
OP 110% 006
Eaecutir•
Sec etarYrEsecutire
Director
Socretar
Adeinie ratira
Aaaistant
Pro9rao
Deeelopoont
Officer
Project
Offlcar
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No im low A"M a& Ong ow Am 404
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ON ^ ^ ^ M SW
NAIIMAL IllOLE ta0M0 OKMItAtIpNAt t(rIFN
AA^iniytr,ttjvr A^,-i;ltSENIOR BOARD an
MEMDERSL^-----
REGULAR ROAR6----l
MFMOERS
rTFMPORARY 80ARD
OMMUN I TY BOARDl MP 7 f
CE 01A11-Al
^ CIIAIRMAM APP[AI
DIVISION
REGULAR BOARD MEMBERS
APPEAL DIVISION
TEMPORARY BOARD MFMO(RS
APPEAL DIVISION
CNA IRSM
SpecialAiivisor
Access to Inforsatia
C Privacy Officer
A/einistrativr
Assis anl
Secretarl
CHAR 1 .39
CNA i NllAt
ItrCONNENDATION /!3
OPTION /j5
Senior Exocutive ivLe4a1 SecreterY er
^Çeaneiri
fecrstu e Leyalservices CeW*sel
SELRETAR
Olreet.br, ►sile Isfor^atieePro uf$i tisdia feletien•
Clsrt
bdie N4Istlow^{officer I
sroqr=
Oevelor«rt
officer
Proqrae
DaveloPeeat
Officer
Lecreta
Adainlsirative
Assistant
Project
Officer