Those unfamiliar with the workings of City Hall may be surprised to learn that there is an entire family of city controlled boards that share such a disregard for central authority as to cast a shadow over the entire organization.

It’s a serious charge. But their ability to set their own rules and mandate has now reached the point where our municipal government is often the servant of these boards. One columnist recently called City Hall “a transit authority and a security force, and little else.” He has a point.

Without a doubt each agency carries out an important service. But each seems to do so with little regard for Council, other City operations or even its own mandate.

Examples are plentiful. Why would the TTC announce a multi-billion transit plan without benefit of consultation from Council, the public or other transit providers? The impacts are huge: on regional service, provincial funding and City planning.

Why do the police need to operate an on-street parking business? In most other municipalities this service is performed by a separate organization at considerable savings.

And why is it essential for the Board of Health to franchise vending carts? How the design of food carts and their financing is relevant to the mandate of the Board of Health still mystifies Torontonians.

Look beyond this mission creep and you will find evidence of unmanageable expense. Most famously, just three of these boards – transit, police and health - account for over three-quarters of all municipal new hires, even in the face of annual cutback announcements.

The response of these boards to last spring’s financial distress call was instructive. The police, with their budget of almost $800m thought it could manage $3m. The TTC first threatened to close an entire subway line, but finally cut no costs and instead postponed service enhancements, delayed opening a garage and increased fares. The library chopped services at the beginning of the school year in such a manner as to actually increase costs. In short, their assistance was either minimal or not helpful.

Dig deeper, and you’ll find instances of unnecessary duplication. In information technology for example, the City invested huge sums into a system selected in part because it would be also used by these boards. After ten years, a number of them still continue with incompatible systems. Trying to establish responsibility for compatible technology is again the subject of governance review - Cityspeak for impotence.

If all of these examples were part of a vision, policy or conscious direction, then Torontonians could recognize them as part of an overall strategy. Unfortunately they are not. The vast majority of duplications, new programs and new hires – like Council’s spectacular stumble into a downspout disconnect program that will need perhaps $70m to address - are without any central vision, direction or coordination.

It’s not intended to work this way. Councillors selected to boards are to represent our common interest. In fact, the opposite occurs. Once they are appointed, Councillors see themselves as advocates, defending boards’ interests against what they see as a grasping Council and meddling City staff.

There is a way out. Council as a whole can start by articulating a vision and mandate for each of its boards. Statements of principles can be applied to all boards along basic management precepts to ensure compliance with Council direction. Unlike the current free-for-all, actions not prescribed would require specific Council approval. As an added novelty, rules established for the City’s operations – on matters as mundane as the selection of auditors or procurement policies – must apply to everyone.

Outside of City Hall, these suggestions are not radical. Establishing a common vision, and rules that are respected throughout the organization are vital for every endeavour. By each taking their own paths, setting their own rules, and not accepting basic direction, Council’s boards threaten to overshadow the public good they were created to perform.