Dear Sub Pro Small Team,

Today I heard our Sub Pro Small Team fearless leader Paul announce to the GAC that the ideas around Applicant Support that will be developed by the "Small Team Plus" will constitute "Implementation Guidance" for the Board.  Of course in Sub Pro "speak", Implementation Guidance is a term of art that means the ideas will not constitute a policy recommendation as contemplated by Annex A, Section 9 which speaks of Supplemental Recommendations which are policy recommendations.  I commented on this in our Small Team meeting on Saturday.  (For clarity, "implementation Guidance" is a defined term in the Sub Pro Final Report and it is not obligatory if the Board finds that it is impractical.)

Although Paul began to speak about Implementation Guidance in the small team meeting on Saturday, I don't recall a consensus being developed on this approach.  Perhaps more importantly, it strikes me that the decision as to whether the ideas to be put forward in the Supplemental Recommendation for Applicant Support will constitute Implementation Guidance (and not policy per se) is actually a question for Council and not for the Small Team alone to decide as this is in fact a policy matter. 

Perhaps Paul (and staff?) are thinking this is the only workable approach because of the many ideas that have been put forward.  The thought may be that no one idea (or merging of ideas into one consensus Supplemental Recommendation)  will be feasible.  Or that this process would take too long, if achievable at all?  These are all very real concerns.

However, I do need to raise this Point of Order before the meeting with the Board where the Board Statement on Sub Pro Non-Adoption will be reviewed.  I believe that in respecting the boundaries of Small Team work, we would need authorization from Council to state to the Board that suggestions for providing expanded assistance in the realm of Applicant Support would constitute mere "Implementation Guidance" rather than actual policy Recommendations which are Supplemental in nature pursuant to Annex A, Section 9.

Of course it would be easier for the Board to accept a truncated Recommendation 17.2 which is not specific  other than to say "expand Applicant Support".  Then we could tack on various Implementation Guidance ideas which do not actually bind the Board.  However, again I believe that if that is to be the approach taken by the Small Team, it should be approved in advance by Council.)

As incoming Chair, Greg has already indicated in his presentation to Council his concern in relation to transparency of Council small team work.  So let's be very careful about this one as we are due to go before the Board to discuss the non-adopted items in the pending Sub Pro Final Report Recommendations.  Could we please discuss this further in our Closed Session?  I do not think the same statement made today to the GAC should be repeated before the Board without authorization from Council.

Thank you,

Anne