17 APRIL 2000-5:00 P.M.



Chair: Councillor H. Kreling

Vice Chair: Mr. G. Baskerville

Members: Ms. E. Buckingham, Councillor J. Legendre, Mr. J. McCombie


Mr. D. Adam, Regional Chair B. Chiarelli



That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board confirm the Minutes of the 28 February, 3 March, 10 March and 20 March 2000 meetings.




1. Regrets from Mr. M. Hodgson, Police Services Advisor

Chair Kreling relayed regrets on behalf of Mr. M. Hodgson, Police Services Advisor. He indicated Mr. Hodgson had planned to attend tonight’s meeting but was unable to due to the recent death of his mother-in-law. At Chair Kreling’s suggestion, the Board agreed to send its condolences to Mr. Hodgson and his family.


2. Appointment of V. Bevan as New Chief of Police

Chair Kreling advised that Deputy Chief Bevan will be assuming the role of Chief of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service on 1 July 2000. On the Board’s behalf, Chair Kreling extended formal congratulations to Chief Bevan and thanked Chief Ford for his efforts and hard work over the past five years.



Ms. Judy McDonald, Chair, Pathway Patrol Steering Committee, thanked the Board for its tremendous support of the Pathway Patrol Program over the past four years.

Ms. McDonald explained the Pathway Patrol Program was created to foster safety, security and courtesy on the pathways of the capital region, and was implemented as a pilot project by the Owls Nest in Carlingwood. She noted that in 1995 there were 45 volunteers patrolling 170 pathways within the national capital area. She indicated patrollers go out in pairs and they walk, in-line skate, or cycle. All patrollers are given first aid and emergency training, as well as basic bike repair.

Mr. Ken Debuke, a pathway patroller since the program’s inception, indicated the volunteers are of all ages and backgrounds. Their focus is to give back to the community. This year, the patrol will focus on outreach to the multi-cultural community.

Ms. McDonald introduced Constable Rene Emmell, who is involved in the screening of volunteer patrollers, and teaches the first aid and CPR courses. Ms. McDonald felt the program is a successful example of private and public sector groups coming together in a community project. It includes the Region, the cities of Ottawa and Nepean, the Federal Government, the National Capital Commission (NCC), as well as private sector organizations.

Councillor Ron Kolbus, City of Ottawa, expressed gratitude to the seniors from the Owls Nest, whose initial concerns about safety led to the formation of the program. He echoed Ms. McDonald’s sentiments about the cooperation of all the organizations and individuals involved in making the program a success.

Ms. McDonald also noted the assistance of Ms. M. O’Hagan from the Regional Health Department, Mr. T. Lefebvre, and the Citizens for Safe Cycling. In light of the program’s success, a manual is being developed to assist other cities across the Province in implementing similar programs. She stated all patrollers are trained at the Lakeside Gardens facility and each community is responsible for scheduling their patrollers. In closing, Ms. McDonald extended an offer to assist other communities in developing pathway patrol programs.

In response to questions from Member Legendre, Ms. McDonald indicated interested parties can contact her for information at 828-4313. She also referenced page 11 in the recently released Bike Guide, which provides information on the program. She explained that although training has been conducted in English to date, it has been developed as a bilingual program and all materials are published in both official languages. She assured the Board that training can be provided in French upon request.

Chair Kreling thanked Ms. McDonald for her efforts which benefit residents and visitors of the Capital region.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this presentation for information.





- Chief’s report dated 10 Apr 00

Before summarizing the report, including its background and recommendations, Superintendent Hill introduced Mr. J. Heyman and Mr. P. Andrews, RMOC Supply Management Division, and Sergeant R. Lavigne.

In response to a question from Member Legendre, Superintendent Hill indicated the following firms responded to the Request for Proposal (RFP): Ottawa Towing Service; Gervais Motors Limited; Jim Fraser’s Ultramar and Towing; J&E Towing and Recovery; Ottawa Metro Towing and Recovery; Kornell’s Towing; Dr. Hook Towing; and Dan’s Towing Service.

Member Legendre noted a consortium of three towing companies has alleged that they were not notified of the RFP on the same day as the other firms, and therefore had inadequate time to prepare a proposal. Mr. P. Andrews, Senior Officer, Policy and Purchasing Division, stated that staff were sensitive to the need to notify all firms of the RFP. The proposal was faxed to 25 firms on March 1. On March 2, staff telephoned or e-mailed those companies whose faxed copies could not be confirmed as received. He also noted the RFP was posted on the Merx system.

Mr. J. Bolton, Dr. Hook Towing, expressed concerns with the selection process. He suggested that it does not make economic sense to select the same towing company to represent the far reaches of the Region. He inquired as to whether, after the successful candidate was chosen for the first zone, the committee then gave the next zone to the second place firm. He felt there should have been a re-evaluation after the first place company was selected.

Mr. Andrews explained that eight qualified firms bid for the high-volume "Zone A" area; therefore staff asked those firms to indicate their zone preference.

Superintendent Hill indicated all proponents were evaluated according to specific criteria. To avoid the potential of having one firm dominate the police towing business, the process was set up so that a maximum of two zones could be awarded to any given firm, and that of those two only one could be a Type A zone (the larger zones). He re-iterated that because many firms qualified in multiple zones, the committee asked those firms to state their zone preference.

In response to a request from Chair Kreling, Superintendent Hill clarified that many firms earned high points in more than one zone.

In response to a question from Mr. Bolton, Superintendent Hill stated that based on the geographic zones outlined in the RFP, each firm had the latitude to bid on their prefered areas and were requested to indicate their specific preferences.

Chair Kreling stressed that each proponent made a specific indication of its preferred zone, which is an individual business choice.

In response to a query from Mr. Bolton, Mr. Andrews confirmed that de-briefings will be provided to all interested firms at which time information will be provided with regard to the weaknesses and strengths of their proposal. He indicated such meetings are a common practice and he believed they are very helpful for bidders.

Mr. J. Jawarski, Solicitor, Doucet McBride, on behalf of Kornell’s Towing, wondered whether each bidder was ranked and scored separately in each zone and if scores would be made available. Mr. Andrews confirmed that bidders were scored separately in each zone and indicated point ratings are not typically divulged, even in de-briefings. He added it would be contrary to RMOC policy to release individual point scores.

Mr. Jawarski felt scores should be public information as they are the basis for awarding the contract and selecting the successful bidder.

Chair Kreling noted that the RMOC Supply and Services Division evaluates and awards tenders on a broad range of issues and the point scores are normally not revealed in a public forum, although as much information as possible is divulged in de-briefings.

Mr. E. Johnston, Regional Solicitor, advised that the position of the RMOC and the Police Services Board is that access to point evaluations and scoring are withheld in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) legislation to avoid giving unfair advantage to private sector businesses that respond to public body tenders.

Chair Kreling noted that during de-briefings contractors are given feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their proposals but such information is restricted by MFIPPA legislation. Mr. Johnston confirmed de-briefings pertaining to contracts that have a point rating do not include informatoin on the ratings.

Mr. Jawarski stated that since the criteria in the proposal sets out a point rating system, without knowing the scores it is difficult to determine where a proposal was weak, or to know whether competitors were rated inappropriately or incorrectly. Chair Kreling reiterated that proponents will be provided feedback on their proposals, however no firm will be provided information on competitors’ proposals.

In response to further comments from Mr. Jawarksi with respect to the fairness of the system and the right to access of information, Chair Kreling stated any Board has to satisfy itself that a proper process was followed and that each of the proponents were held to the same stringent evaluations. He stressed the contract will be awarded and selected firms will be held to completion of the contract as outlined in the RFP. The tendering process is a well established one, tender documents must be relied upon, and contractors must be held to the contract terms.

In response to further questions from Mr. Jawarski, Mr. Andrews noted that, subject to Board approval, the contracts will commence on 1 May 2000 as indicated in the RFP. Successful bidders are permitted thirty days from that date to complete any work requested as a condition of their contract. In cases of non-compliance, the next successful bidder may be awarded the contract. He also noted site visits were conducted by the evaluation team to view the equipment and compound facilities of each proponent.

Mr. D. Dion, Dan’s Towing, thanked the Board for allowing him the opportunity to speak. He felt the RFP provided an advantage for centrally-located firms over rural firms and noted the four firms selected are located within four kilometres of each other which, although convenient for the police, does not serve the public well. Mr. Dion stated that despite having two rural zones in the RFP, no rural firms have been selected.

Mr. J. Gervais, Gervais Towing, was pleased that his firm was selected. He wondered what kind of monitoring would occur to ensure the selected firms comply with the guidelines of their contracts. Sergeant R. Lavigne indicated the contracts contain a default clause wherein an offending company will be sent a letter from the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service (OCRPS) requesting compliance within seven days. In the event the firm does not comply, this will be followed up by a second letter from the Chair of the Police Services Board. If the firm remains non-compliant after receiving these two letters, the contract will be defaulted.

Mr. E. Spirak, RIF Towing Services, stated RIF Towing was notified of the Request for Proposal (RFP) three days later than all the other firms. He maintained that the late notification, compounded with their attempt to amalgamate three firms into one, provided them inadequate opportunity to properly respond to the RFP. He felt the RFP should have been published in the Ottawa Sun and other local papers because not all firms have access to MERX and not everyone subscribes to the Ottawa Citizen. In addition, Mr. Spirak explained the closing date of the RFP was the first time he entered the building at 111 Lisgar Street and he had difficulty locating the correct drop-off location. He indicated that after asking for directions from several people in the building, he eventually arrived at the Clerk’s reception at 3:08 p.m.. He argued the fact that his document was stamped at 3:26 p.m. can be attributed to the fact that different clocks give different times. Mr. Spirak stressed his firm should not be penalized for the late arrival. In closing, he suggested the RFP process should be redone in order to make the terms fair to all parties involved.

Chair Kreling noted a letter from Ms. R. Fleming, RIF Towing Services, was circulated to Board members prior to the meeting.

In reponse to questions from Chair Kreling, Mr Andrews confirmed the RFP was posted on MERX and notification faxes were sent out on March 1st. On March 2nd, two companies were notified by telephone when fax transmission reports showed that their faxed notices had not been received. In addition, Mr. Andrews stated he has a record of an e-mail notice sent to RIF Towing on March 2nd and that a representative of RIF picked-up the proposal package on March 15th.

Although Chair Kreling sympathized with Mr. Spirak’s situation, he stressed staff have been advised that all late proposals have to be returned and he noted the public tendering process is stringently maintained.

In response to a question from member Legendre, Mr. Andrews indicated that proposal documents contain a clear and consistent statement instructing proponents as to the time and location for drop-offs. He noted all proposals are due at the Regional Clerk’s Department by 3:00 p.m. on the appointed date. He re-iterated the proposal documents were posted on the MERX and were available for pick-up at the RMOC Supply Management Division.

Because more than one delegation has expressed an unease about the way the contracts will be monitored and about what will happen if a firm is non-compliant, Member Legendre indicated he was not comfortable awarding the contract at this time. He wondered whether successful firms were scored based on existing facilities or on their promise to have facilities in place within thirty days of the contract. Mr. Andrews acknowledged some firms will need to make enhancements to their facilities as a condition of the contract.

Member Legendre stated he does not agree with the terms of the RFP and he requested that staff be vigilant in monitoring the conditions of the service and the performance of the firms to ensure compliance. He believed that if the selected companies do not comply with the terms of their contracts, many other companies will be able and willing to provide their services. In closing, member Legendre indicated he would dissent on the item. He noted he had tried at an earlier meeting to separate impound and towing services, and still did not understand why they were connected.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board award the contract for the provision of towing services in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for the period May 1, 2000 to April 30, 2003, to:

Type "A" (Urban)

East - Ottawa Metro Towing

Central - Ottawa Towing Service

West - Gervais Motors Ltd.

Type "B" (Rural)

East - Gervais Motors Ltd.

West - Kornell’s Towing


(J. Legendre dissented)




- Chief’s report dated 11 Apr 00

Mr. J. Mitchell, Director of Prisoner Escort Operations, Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, indicated the Corps has met with the Association of Municipalities in Ontario, the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, and fifteen to twenty municipalities across Ontario to discuss the provision of prisoner escort services. He stated a number of municipalities presently use their services for prisoner escorts and non-core functions, and the Corps has discussed the possibility of tendering to provide prisoner escort services for provincial super jails.

In reply to comments by member Legendre, Mr. Mitchell noted some police services boards have expressed a reluctance to privatize such a serious endeavour. He indicated the Corps employs retired police officers and military personnel.

Member Legendre noted that although he feels no such reluctance, he has concerns about accepting an unsolicited proposal and entering into a sole-source arrangement. Mr. Mitchell indicated the Corps would welcome the opportunity to participate in a tendering process.

In reply to a query from Vice Chair Baskerville, Mr. Mitchell indicated the Corps did not provide financial information on potential costs for providing prisoner escort services as it would require an analysis of the current services and costs. He believed any savings would primarily derive from salary costs because the Corps employs retired personnel.

Member Buckingham felt the information provided on existing services was insufficient and proposed a motion that the Chief be directed to provide a comprehensive report with an analysis of the benefits and limitations of the existing prisoner escort service and if any other organization provides the service.

Member Legendre suggested that member Buckingham’s motion be amended to address the possibility of a private sector organization providing prisoner escort services. Member Buckingham indicated she would prefer the motion make reference to prisoner escort services being provided by another organization rather than referring to a "private" organization, which is in keeping with the concept of contracting out services.

Member McCombie felt special constables currently do an adequate job of providing prisoner escort services and indicated his satisfaction with the status quo. He recalled that an inquiry was raised at a previous meeting with regard to the costs associated with transporting prisoners. Chair Kreling indicated there has been an exchange of correspondence with the Province on the matter.

Deputy Chief Bevan referenced item 4 of the agenda (Report on Services Provided by Courts and Forensic Identification) and noted a full analysis of this issue will be prepared and a report brought forward to the Board as part of the Support Services 2000 Review.

In response to a question from member Buckingham, Chief Ford indicated a motion is not necessary as the issue of prisoner transport will be examined for cost savings as part of the Support Services 2000 Review. Following the Chief’s and the Deputy Chief’s comments, member Buckingham withdrew her motion.

In light of the discussion, Chair Kreling suggested the Board receive the correspondence from the Commissionaires, and that the matter be considered in a broader sense following the 2000 Review.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires’s offer to provide prisoner escort services for the OCRPS.




- Chief’s report dated 11 Apr 00

Member Buckingham indicated she was uncertain of the intent of the report and wondered why it was before the Board. Deputy Chief Bevan indicated the report was prepared in response to the Board’s request to receive quarterly updates on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report on the review of the basic cost structure for the OCRPS, approved by the Board at its 24 January 2000 meeting.

In response to a question from member Buckingham with regard to the timeframe for the review, Acting Superintendent H. Durand indicated staff are developing timeframes. A committee has been formed and they are in turn forming sub-committees to conduct the review. Acting Superintendent Durand hoped that by the end of April, all committees would be in place and the review started, with recommendations to be formulated in September.

Member Buckingham suggested that future updates indicate why the report is before the Board and focus on the accomplishments of the previous quarter and plans for the next quarter.

In response to further questions from member Buckingham, Acting Superintendant Durand indicated the review involves Inspector C. Bordeleau from the Communications Centre, Inspector S. Dunlop from Support Services Courts Forensic Identification, Staff Sergeant T. McIlvenna from the Forensic Identification Section, Staff Sergeant T. Welsh from the Court Security Central Cell Block Section, Ms. D. Erfle-Storie, the Court Liaison Manager, and Staff Sergeant P. Gallant from the Communications Section. In response to a question from member Buckingham, Acting Superintendent Durand stated they will certainly be considering whether outside help is required and are not adverse to having an external person challenge their assumptions.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.




- Verbal presentation by D. Pepper, Director of Community Development

Deputy Chief Mackie introduced the members of the team: Constable Mark Cartright, who does a tremendous amount of problem-solving work in East Division and has been involved in several fine problem-oriented policing initiatives; Gilbert Lee who was one of the summer students involved in last year’s graffiti removal project; and Mr. D. Pepper, Director of Community Development, who coordinated the program.

Mr. Pepper noted Constable Lafleur was also involved in the initiative but was unable to attend the meeting.

D. Pepper provided an overview of the topics to be discussed during the presentation. They included: an introduction to the project and the people who worked on the project; the project partners; the project timelines; the approach taken; the accomplishments; the learnings that resulted from the project; and the next steps.

He explained that the project set out to accomplish three main goals: to cover-up or remove graffiti in designated sections of the downtown core; to help police investigate graffiti vandalism; and to provide information on removal and prevention of graffiti to businesses and residents in Ottawa-Carleton.

He indicated the project partners included the City of Ottawa, the Regional Transportation Department, Canada Post, Bell Canada, Ottawa Hydro, OC Transpo, and the National Capital Commission.

The project was developed during the spring of 1999 and was officially launched on 9 June 1999. Mr. Pepper provided highlights of the project activities throughout its 12-week duration: the initial set-up and acquisition of materials in week 1; the collection of information relating to locations in weeks 2 and 3; by week 5, the team determined that it was necessary to focus on some high-traffic areas; and in week 7, the inventory and removal continued and the team began responding to special requests. The project ended on 3 September 1999.

Students were hired to form the project team. They were: Paul Lalonde, a Queen’s University Law student, was the Research and Database Analyst; Stephanie Darrach, a student from the University of Ottawa, was the Outreach Coordinator; Steven Ko, a student from the University of Ottawa, was the Cover-up and Removal Technician; Richard Charles assisted with picture and information collection as a volunteer; and Amanda Beaton assisted with database entry and phone surveys as a volunteer.

The team took a four-staged approach to their task: graffiti was located in the designated section, the address recorded and an electronic photograph taken for database purposes; the information was then processed into a database, this was necessary for tracking purposes and to make database information available to specialty sections in the organization; the Outreach Coordinator would then seek permission for cover-up or removal at the actual location; and finally, the actual cover-up or removal would take place.

Mr. Pepper highlighted the accomplishments of the graffiti removal project including: the cover-up or removal of graffiti at over 515 locations; public education; arrests and information gathering (in the last two weeks of the project, two different sets of arrests were made of graffiti vandals in the Ottawa area); the creation of a database; and collaboration on the development of a visual database. He explained that graffiti vandals are known to collaborate and visit other jurisdictions. Maintaining a visual database makes it easier to gather information on their activities and share it with other organizations.

In terms of public education, Mr. Pepper noted the business card developed for the project was used as an outreach tool and provided businesses in the Ottawa area with a 24-hour graffiti hotline. The promotion of it allowed businesses to call in and report incidents of graffiti in their area. A pamphlet is currently being produced and will be used in further public education. It will: highlight what graffiti is and explain its effect on the community; provide removal and cover-up options so that communities can take matters into their own hands; and speak to the prevention of graffiti. He also noted that as a result of the publicity received by the project, there were a number of community meetings with safety committees in the centretown area, communities in the west end, and with young people through the youth services bureau.

Some of the learnings that resulted from the project included: getting a grasp of the extent of graffiti in Ottawa; the level of public interest as well as disinterest in graffiti; the impact on resources in terms of the amount of money spent annually on cleaning-up and addressing graffiti vandalism; the project evaluation; and the need for coordination to address the problem of graffiti vandalism.

In terms of the next steps, Mr. Pepper indicated: the OCRPS will continue its district approaches to graffiti; the Service will continue to work with sponsors; the brochures that are currently in production will be made available extensively through community police centres and other public agencies where graffiti is a problem; and a report flowing out of the project will be made available to communities and agencies in Ottawa-Carleton so that people can learn from the Service’s experiences. The opportunities that flow from the project include: continued collaboration; public education; the continued development of the visual database; district initiated problem-solving initiatives; continued support for campaigns and initiatives designed to address graffiti vandalism such as the City of Ottawa’s clean-up the capital spring campaign; and continuing to plan an effective and coordinated approach to graffiti under the new City of Ottawa. The partners involved in the graffiti removal project will be putting forward the position as a model in 2001 that a multi-agency, cross-sectoral task force is the only way to effectively deal with the issues and problems surrounding graffiti.

Constable M. Cartright explained that in East Division, which is part rural and part urban/suburban, the public expressed great dismay about the graffiti problem. Staff’s first approach was to consider the source of the problem in a very material way, the spray paint. Officers approached retail outlets selling spray paint and suggested that they consider asking for photo identification from any youths wanting to purchase spray paint. This resulted in an immediate reduction in spray paint sales. Officers were able to obtain information about graffiti occurrences and culprits through patrols and one-on-one contact with the public. He noted initially there was a certian amount of public disinterest, but once people realized the police were asking questions and taking the graffiti problem seriously, they were very forthcoming. Once they had information, officers engaged in enforcement and were able to make arrests. Constable Cartright noted that, as in most criminal areas, when you arrest 5% of the criminals, you eliminate 90% of the crime and that was the case with the Service’s approach to graffiti in East Division.

In response to questions from Vice Chair Baskerville, Constable Cartright confirmed the enforcement initiative had a dramatic effect in East Division. Three perpetrators have been charged and one has already been convicted. He explained that by charging them, the judicial system was able to impose conditions which restrict their ability to commit graffiti; curfews were imposed and they were not allowed to associate with each other. He noted that by publicizing the arrests, the vandals’ neighbourhoods became aware of their identity and this greatly hindered their ability to commit graffiti vandalism. In terms of resources, Constable Cartright stated that in their casual dealings with residents, neighbourhood officers were able to talk to residents about graffiti vandalism. Once they had information, the Service committed nine officers for a four-evening enforcement period. He noted a happy coincidence is that officers were able to catch two robberies in progress in the immediate area.

Vice Chair Baskerville suggested it is a model that can be expanded to all districts. Constable Cartright indicated it works best where people live. He believed people are more concerned about such problems where they live. He thought that in a downtown core, where people are more transient, there is less anger about such problems.

In response to a question from Vice Chair Baskerville with regard to the continuation of the project, Mr. Pepper indicated it was designed as a pilot project so that the Service could get a grasp of the issues in relation to graffiti and to develop some working relationships with the partners. He stated the OCRPS will not be hiring students to run the project the way it did last year, but staff are trying to encourage the imitation of that approach within different communities. The Service is willing to provide communities with advice and police support.

In response to a question from member Legendre with respect to recidivism, Mr. Pepper indicated that based on last year’s experience, approximately 30% of the sites were hit again, though not necessarily by the same vandals.

Member Legendre was sorry to hear that the project would not be repeated this summer and he thought there may be some territory lost before the project is started-up again next year. He recalled that the grounds of Expo 67 were always clean and because they were, people looked for waste baskets to dispose of their drink cups. He believed that had the grounds been dirty, people would have contributed to it. He suggested, the impression that is given automatically affects the behaviour of others.

Mr. Pepper did not want to leave the impression that there would be no graffiti removal or cover-up done this summer. He stressed, the Service’s partners continue to work very hard to address the problem of graffiti and last year’s project was an additional effort. He agreed that the only way to effectively deal with graffiti is to have a clear commitment and that’s why this year, staff are planning a multi-sector, multi-agency collaboration, to ensure a five-year commitment with long-term investments in human and material resources. He noted the City of Ottawa is continuing its work in terms of removal and cover-up with the support of the OCRPS. He suggested that not running the project this year would give the Service a chance to determine the rate of recidivism.

Member Buckingham thanked Mr. Pepper for providing the Board with advance copies of the presentation material which allowed members the time to read it over the weekend. She hoped staff would continue to provide such presentations in advance.

Chair Kreling recognized the benefits of the program and thanked staff for bringing the report forward. He believed graffiti has an impact and he hoped partnerships would continue to be fostered with communities. He suggested graffiti is such a visual problem that we don’t want to lose some of the ground gained during the project, we want to keep building on it.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this presentation for information.




- Chief’s report dated 10 April 00

Member Buckingham thought this was a very positive outreach initiative and she was happy to see it occurring. She felt there are a lot of benefits in the Police Service making itself available to answer people’s questions.

Vice Chair Baskerville concurred with member Buckingham’s comments, stating he also felt it was a good initiative. He noted the report states the police were able to fill in a time slot because of a cancellation. He was concerned that in last minute situations, staff might be unprepared, and inadvertantly present a bad image. He felt that if the Service gets involved in this type of public outreach, staff must have sufficient time to ensure they are well prepared so that the Service comes across with the right message and the right image.

Mr. D. Pepper, Director, Community Development, indicated the Service accepted the opportunity to do a call-in program on 24 February because staff were confident that the themes put forward would allow for adequate preparation. He noted the Service turns down more offers than it accepts specifically because of the need for preparation.

Chair Kreling indicated he and staff were able to work with Rogers for a few days in preparation for the program. In response to Vice Chair Baskerville’s concerns about the potential for getting blindsided, Chair Kreling noted that is always a risk with live call-in programs. He noted that particular evening, a number of callers expressed their support of the Police Service and recognized the work of specific officers. The questions posed were very reasonable and panel members were able to address them.

Member Legendre noted that he first raised this issue as an inquiry at the 22 December 1997 meeting. He was glad to see that staff were moving on it and suggested he would like to see the initiative expanded. He hoped the Service would participate in such programs on a more regular basis. He felt it is an excellent vehicle to give the community an opportunity to have their questions answered and for the OCRPS to get messages out to the public.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.




- Chief’s report dated 6 Apr 00

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.





- Chief’s report dated 11 Apr 00

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.



- Policy Committee’s report dated 11 Apr 00

Member Legendre suggested two additions to the "Ends to be Achieved" policies. Under Community awareness, he suggested the addition of "more dialogue with the community". He felt this could be an identifiable end to be achieved. He suggested that "Media outlets" be identified as a specific strategic partnership which ought to be pursued.

Member Buckingham suggested that member Legendre’s amendments be referred to the Policy Committee for review. In terms of the suggestion to add "more dialogue with the community", she questioned whether the Board needs to be that explicit. The idea behind the document, as outlined in the preamble, is to set a high-level objective. It is then the Police Service’s job to tell the Board, through the business plan, exactly how the ends will be achieved. The policy directs staff to increase community awareness of the OCRPS priorities and programs and member Buckingham felt "more dialogue with the community" is part of that.

Member Buckingham expressed a need to review the suggestions in terms of where they fit in to the document and whether or not there is already something in the policy that speaks to these matters. She noted the policies were designed so that they could be easily modified, however they should be relatively stable because they are the foundation for the business plan. She wondered about the timeframe for the business plan and indicated the Policy Committee would be happy to report to the Board on it at its May meeting.

Chair Kreling wondered if member Legendre would consider putting his amendments forward for referral to the Policy Committee as suggested by member Buckingham.

Member Legendre accepted the referral, though he did not see the need. He noted the policy speaks to increasing the community’s feelings of safety and security and increasing community awareness and he suggested that his amendment to add "more dialogue with the community" would serve to clearly define that and make it an end to be achieved, an actual target. With regard to media outlets, he did not see why it could not be added as a specific partnership that the Board would like to see pursued.

Vice Chair Baskerville indicated the Policy Committee welcomes suggestions but would like the time to hone the language to ensure it clearly defines the intent.


Moved by E. Buckingham

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board refer two admendments proposed by Member Legendre to the Policy Committee for review and a subsequent report back to the Board.


(J. Legendre dissented)


That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board accept the "Other" Ends to be Achieved as presented, and incorporate them into Section 4 of the Board’s Policy Manual as previously adopted 19 June 1999.




- Human Resources Committee’s report dated 11 Apr 00

Member Legendre asked to be included as a member of the selection committee.

Chair Kreling indicated all decisions will be made by the full Board, however the selection committee will be required to approach the search firm.

In response to a question from member McCombie, Vice Chair Baskerville explained that when the Board put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the selection of a new Chief of Police, two firms submitted proposals and Renaud Foster was selected. He noted a recent search for a new chief in Toronto cost that Board $60,000 plus expenses. He questioned whether another firm would do a better job than Renaud Foster, or whether the costs would be lower. He did not believe any significant savings or efficiencies would be gained by going through the tendering process and suggested the Board may end up selecting the same firm. He argued that even if a different firm was selected, they would probably incur more costs to familiarize themselves with the organization and the needs of the Board. In terms of timeliness and the need to fill the position as quickly as possible, the Human Resources Committee felt the elimination of the tendering process would expedite matters.

The Board voted on the recommendation, amended by the addition of member Legendre to the Selection Committee.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board:


1. Accept as its process the steps outlined in this report;

2. Use the services of an executive search firm to assist in the selection process for the next Deputy Chief of Police;

3. Task the Human Resources Committee, with the addition of Member Legendre, with primary responsibility for interfacing with the executive search firm when required;

4. Authorize the Human Resources Committee, with the addition of Member Legendre, to enter into negotiations with Renaud Foster Management Consultants to carry out this search on behalf of the Board;

5. Authorize an upset amount of $60,000 to pay for professional fees and other out-of-pocket expenses associated with the search process; and

6. Include Chief-designate Bevan in all facets of the selection process, including question development and the interviews with short-listed candidates.

CARRIED as amended




- Chief’s report dated 6 Apr 00

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.




- Chief’s report dated 10 Apr 00

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.




Chief Ford reported on the following items:

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board receive this report for information.




1. Resignation of Ms. C. Frederick, Director of Human Resources

Chair Kreling announced that Ms. C. Frederick, Director of Human Resources, has accepted a position with a private firm and will be leaving the OCRPS in approximately three weeks. On behalf of the Board, he took the opportunity to thank Ms. Frederick for her service over the past few years. He noted the integral part she played in accomplishing the enormous task of bringing together four organizations and creating one human resource function.


2. Private Partnerships

Member Legendre distributed copies of a media release he sent out prior to the meeting entitled "No to two-tier Policing!". He indicated he had asked for an item to be placed on the agenda as a result of a court case in Cornwall in which police received $100,000 from a private firm to do a wiretap as part of a criminal investigation. The principle of a police service receiving money from an individual or company was something that Member Legendre did not think happened in this country and which he found astounding. He noted that a recent Ottawa Citizen editorial indicates the Ontario Police Services Act is silent on this issue. It is up to the police service and its governing body to decide whether such practices will take place. The editorial indicated a senior staff member of the OCRPS had confirmed that such "partnerships" occur in Ottawa-Carleton. He clarified that he was not adverse to all partnerships, but to accept money for an investigation troubled him enormously. He felt the potential exists for priorities to become skewed.

Member Legendre stated he had prepared a number of questions to be addressed, and he hoped the Board would agree to consider the matter. He posed the following questions: does the OCRPS accept private funds from an identifiable source in order to pursue a criminal investigation against a specific individual; if so, how are such funds accounted for in the budget documents; what administrative policies currently control such partnerships with the private sector and who is responsible for administering them; and are there any Board policies currently in place which address this issue?

Member Legendre stated he referenced the oath of office for police officers and noted it refers to "impartiality". He believed such practices call into question the police’s impartiality, and even if it is only a perception, it troubles him. He asked that staff prepare a report, to be included on the next regular Board agenda, outlining the types of partnerships the OCRPS has, even innocent ones. He stressed the need for a comprehensive report on all funds the Service receives "ex gratia" and he also asked that the Board address this matter with a policy.

Chair Kreling apologized for not putting the item on the agenda. He indicated he did not ask for a report on the matter because he thought Member Legendre intended to raise it as an inquiry. He noted the newspaper editorial quotes an officer from OCRPS as saying this is done in Ottawa-Carleton and that such partnerships are approved by the Board at its In Camera meetings. He clarified that such a request has never been brought to the Police Services Board during his membership. Chair Kreling believed the issue in Cornwall relates to an accusation that information gathered as part of investigation was released to a third party, and he was certain that has not occurred here. He agreed the Board should consider the issue from a policy perspective but he maintained there can be greater community good as a result of some police / private sector partnerships.

Member Buckingham indicated the Board does not currently have a policy to address this issue. However, she explained that in preparing the policy manual a year ago, the Policy Committee recognized the need for such a policy and included, under Financial Condition and Activities, the sentence: "The Board recognizes that it will need to include a policy on the acceptance of gifts and sponsorship by the police service (to be developed later)." Member Buckingham indicated she was in receipt of a sample policy from the Halton Board which cites certain criteria under which money could be accepted. She believed it was essential to set criteria around the acceptance of private donations.

Deputy Chief Bevan indicated he was aware of one case which took place approximately four years ago. He indicated his willingness to report to the Board on it, albeit cautiously as the investigation is still unresolved. He believed the Service would benefit from some guidance on this issue. He noted the Police Services Act is no longer mute on the issue and in fact encourages such partnerships. He listed numerous situations where the Service and the community could benefit from such partnerships. He asked that the deadline for reporting back to the Board be extended to two months.

In view of the scope of the report to be prepared, Member Legendre said he did not mind waiting an additional month. He wondered if the OCRPS was involved in the Cornwall case and if so, whether the Service received money. He asked that this information form part of the report. With respect to Chair Kreling’s reference to information from the investigation being released to a third party, Member Legendre indicated he found that abhorrent, but it is not the focus of his inquiry. His focus is on the need for a Board policy to address the issue and on the concept of two-tier policing. He expressed a desire to have the issue thoroughly aired.

Deputy Chief Bevan indicated he would get an answer to the question of whether the OCRPS was involved in the Cornwall investigation and report back to the Board. Chief Ford stated he was not aware of the OCRPS being involved in the Cornwall case and that if officers were involved, it was not with his authority.

In conclusion, Chair Kreling emphasized that this is not something that happens on a regular basis and has never happened during his tenure on the Board.



1. Distribution of Website Material to Board Members

Member Buckingham noted the OCRPS website contains some downloadable documents and suggested all Board members receive copies of documents posted on the site. For example, she stated she had recently downloaded the second bulletin on the Partnership in Action initiative and found it very informative.


2. Provision of Policing Services to Other Jurisdictions

Member Buckingham recalled that in March 1999 she inquired about the possibility of the OCRPS providing policing services to other jurisdictions. She noted Chief Ford’s intent at that time was to report on the matter at the September 1999 meeting. She wondered when the Board could expect to receive a report.

Chief Ford recalled there were some legal issues related to the matter. He indicated a draft report has been prepared and is presently being reviewed by legal counsel.

Member Buckingham asked that the Board be informed at the next meeting when the report will be presented.


3. Status of East Division Facilities Project

Member Buckingham recalled that in September 1999, the Board approved the hiring of an architect for the east end facility; she inquired on the status of the project.

Mr. S. Kanellakos, Director General, explained the Transition Board has been reviewing all capital budgets and staff are waiting to hear back from them. He also explained that since the Board’s approval of the capital budget for the project, costs have increased dramatically therefore, it is becoming more and more difficult to build the facility for the amount budgeted. Staff, in conjunction with the architect and the project manager, are reviewing the project for possible space reductions.

In response to a further question from Member Buckingham, Mr. Kanellakos confirmed the Transition Board has approved the Service’s capital budget, other than the facilities workplan. At their request, staff have submitted details with regard to the facilities workplan and are awaiting their approval to proceed.


4. Police Involvement in Dispute Between

School Board and Father of Special Needs Child

Member Legendre raised an inquiry on behalf of a constituent who was arrested while trying to get a school to provide services to his special needs child. He indicated the police were call on three separate occasions and on each of those occasions, the response seemed to dramatically escalate. He noted that one officer responded the first time the police were called, the second call was responded to by four officers, and seven officers were dispatched on the third occasion. He has been advised that there was no violence on any of these occasions and he wondered why such an escalation in police response had occurred.

Deputy Chief Mackie indicated the issue has not yet gone to court, therefore individuals can not be identified. He explained it is a difficult situation because the police are being put in the middle between the school board and the child’s parents. Because of the nature of the situation, police are trying to use conflict resolution. Deputy Chief Mackie voice his support for the officers and the strategy taken, and re-iterated police are actively trying to de-escalate the situation. In response to a question from Member Legendre, Deputy Chief Mackie confirmed that staff have advocated a conflict resolution approach at the direction of he and Superintendent Smith. However, he was unable to comment further because the matter is before the courts as a result of a summary conviction being laid.

Chair Kreling indicated he was also in receipt of that resident’s inquiry and offered to share information with Member Legendre in regard to his follow-up with staff. He also expressed support for staff’s decision to use conflict resolution in this matter.



Moved by J. McCombie

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board adjourn the public portion of its meeting to move In Camera to discuss confidential items pertaining to personnel matters, in accordance with Section 35(4)(b) of the Police Services Act.




The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.















____________________________ _____________________________

W. Fedec H. Kreling

Executive Director Chair