MINUTES

OTTAWA-CARLETON POLICE SERVICES BOARD

CHAMPLAIN ROOM

21 DECEMBER 1998

5:00 P.M.

 

PRESENT

Chair: Mr. P. Vice

Vice Chair: Councillor H. Kreling

Members: Mr. G. Baskerville, Ms. A. Boudreau, Ms. E. Buckingham,

Councillor J. Legendre

 

REGRETS

Regional Chair B. Chiarelli

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Councillor Legendre referenced the minutes of the 7 December 1998 meeting, saying some minutes appear on pink sheets, indicating they are confidential. He also referenced a memorandum from the Board’s Executive Director explaining why the minutes had been issued on pink sheets. However, he disagreed with the position taken and the opinion provided by Mike Mitchell of the Solicitor General’s office, claiming that it did not represent fact. He stated the meeting in question, held at 4:15 p.m. on 7 December 98, was open; the door was open, and his assistant and legal counsel were present, both of whom would normally not be there if it was an in camera meeting.

He also stated he had some problems with the content of the pink sheets. Specifically, an important objection he had registered during that meeting was not included and in the final paragraph, the Board agreed to something that was not his recollection.

Chair Vice suggested the Board deal first with whether the proceedings of the 4:15 p.m. meeting should be on pink sheets. If it is decided they should remain on pink sheets, any objections the Councillor has with the contents of the minutes will be dealt with in camera. If it is agreed the meeting should be recorded on white sheets, the Councillor’s concerns will be dealt with in public.

Councillor Legendre stated he did not think the question of whether the document should be confidential was a matter of opinion, it was a matter of fact. He argued the meeting was open and one cannot retroactively declare it to have been in camera.

Member Baskerville recalled the Board had discussions with regard to the protocol of how to handle this subject matter. In his opinion, it was a confidential matter and hence was properly reported in confidential minutes, and he believed it should remain that way. He offered to prepare a motion to the effect that the minutes on pink sheets continue to be classified as confidential.

Councillor Legendre stated no motion will change the fact that the meeting was not closed. He stated the Board had discussed whether to close the meeting and the door was open the whole time. He made the gesture to have the door left open, believing it to be an important gesture, and flagged it for everybody in the room. He reiterated the fact that his assistant and legal counsel had been present.

Moved by G. Baskerville

That the Minutes of the 4:15 p.m. meeting held on 7 December 1998 issued on pink sheets as confidential minutes, remain confidential.

CARRIED

YEAS: G. Baskerville, A. Boudreau, H. Kreling, P. Vice …. 4

NAYS: E. Buckingham, J. Legendre …. 2

Chair Vice stated the Councillor would have an opportunity to raise his concerns with regard to the content of the confidential minutes in camera.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board confirm the Minutes of the 23 November, 30 November and 7 December 1998 meetings.

CARRIED

Councillor Legendre took the opportunity to raise a matter scheduled to be discussed by the Board at an in camera meeting later in the evening. He noted his legal counsel, Mr. D. Wallace, had given Board members a copy of a Notice of Application shortly before the meeting. The Notice of Application asks the court for a decision on whether or not the Board should discuss the issue related to his letter of October 26th in camera. In light of the application, the Councillor asked the Board to defer dealing with the matter in order to give the court the necessary time to render a judgement.

Chair Vice wondered how the Councillor would be prejudiced in any way if the Board proceeded to deal with the matter in camera tonight, noting that if the court finds in his favor the matter will be publicly released in any case. If the Board proceeds to deal with it tonight and the court tells us at a later date to do something differently, then the pertinent minutes will be released.

Councillor Legendre stated he had no intention of participating in such an in camera session as he did not believe it to be correct. He did not know in what way the Board would be prejudiced in allowing the court to render a decision. He thought it was the safest and best way to protect his rights. He stated a lot has been said around this issue about the rights of someone else in this room but time and again his own rights have been passed over. He wanted to ask the court for a clear decision and he needed the cooperation of the Board to have that happen. He argued it made no sense to have it happen post-facto.

Chair Vice stated he was having a hard time understanding how the Councillor would be prejudiced, particularly when he says he has no intention of taking part in the in camera meeting. He did not know how Councillor Legendre could claim prejudice if he decided himself not to take part in the meeting when he has every opportunity to do so.

Member Baskerville noted the matter is not clearly defined and that there are many issues that have become part of it; two of them have in fact been place on the open agenda for discussion. However he believed there are some issues related to this matter which are confidential and should be discussed in camera. Further, he believed it is the Board as a group that is responsible for making that determination and no one member of this Board stands above the Board. The Police Services Act in fact is very clear that the Board speaks with one voice and all members are obliged to recognize that.

Councillor Legendre responded that the matter was defined in a very precise motion set out in the public minutes approved moments ago by the Board. Specifically, the motion moved by member Buckingham at the last meeting indicated the Board would discuss in camera tonight, his letter of October 26th. He believed it was very precise and that there was nothing fuzzy about it.

 

ITEMS OF BUSINESS

1. CONSIDERATION OF THE 1999 BUDGET ESTIMATES

- Budget documents previously distributed

Vice Chair Kreling requested clarification on some issues surrounding the Provincial Offenses Act (POA) transfer. In particular, his concerns focused on: the need to reach an agreement with the municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton and the amount of time that could take; funds that have been set aside by the Province and which the Region can not receive due to the lack of an agreement with the municipalities; failing an agreement being reached, whether the Province could suggest some other avenue to follow, or put in place some mediation to achieve such an agreement; and what other responsibilities the Region might be assuming as a result of these transfers.

Eric Johnston, Acting Regional Solicitor, confirmed there will be some administrative costs built into the transfer of the POA offenses. In response to Vice Chair Kreling’s concerns with regard to an agreement between the municipalities, he explained that the Province has taken the position that no funds will flow until there is an inter-municipal service agreement and a formal agreement with the Province for the assumption of responsibilities. He was optimistic that a consensus amongst the municipalities, or at least a substantial agreement, will be achieved early in the new year resulting in a flow of funds by mid-year. Vice Chair Kreling thanked the solicitor for his answer and requested that the Board be apprised of the negotiations at its February meeting.

Member Baskerville recalled the concerns he raised at the last meeting with regard to the vacancy rate and how it could be addressed. He indicated that following some discussions with staff, he was satisfied that it would be addressed and therefore he supported the Budget as submitted.

Member Boudreau was pleased with the Budget though she expressed some concern with regard to the payments-in-lieu (PIL’s) and wondered if staff had any new information on those figures. Mr. Kanellakos indicated an announcement was recently made that funding would be forthcoming in terms of what the Region was expecting, therefore no further problems are anticipated with the Police Service Budget in terms of the PIL’s.

Member Buckingham was also prepared to accept the Budget estimates as tabled. However, she believed this Budget simply buys some time. She maintained the only reason the Service is able to hold the line on taxes is because of the increase in the PIL’s from the Federal Government and the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) contribution holiday. She argued the OMERS holiday is not going to last forever and at some point funding will have to be found to replace it. She also recalled from the 7 December meeting that several of the expense items are based on optimistic assumptions. She believed the Service will be challenged to come in under budget in 1999.

She was pleased that the Board provided direction to the Chief at the November meeting to bring forward at least two months prior to tabling detailed Budget estimates for 2000, a range of options, both short and long-term, for reducing the underlying cost structure for the provision of policing services in Ottawa-Carleton. She saw this as a positive step for the organization and hoped that a year from now, the Service will be in a much better position to deal with the fiscal pressures.

 

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board:

1. Approve the revised 1999 Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service Operating Budget Estimates as outlined in the Budget Tabling Presentation;

2. Approve the 1999 Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service Capital Budget as presented;

3. Forward the Budget to Regional Council for approval.

CARRIED

 

2. ACQUISITION OF AFIS 2000

(AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM)

- Deputy Chief’s report dated 21 Dec 98

Deputy Bevan apologized for not providing a report in advance of the Board meeting. He explained that at the last moment, the vendor changed some numbers resulting in staff putting forward a different recommendation than originally intended. He introduced Inspector H. Durand and Staff Sergeant D. Handy who made a presentation on the background of AFIS and the proposal being put forward.

Inspector Durand indicated the presentation deals with the acquisition of a year 2000 compliant Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). He explained the AFIS workstation provides the capability for faster entry of accused fingerprints and search of crime scene fingerprints. The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service (OCRPS) fingerprint forms are stored on a database maintained by the Metro Toronto Police Service. Newly-entered fingerprints are compared to the database to confirm identifications. Crime scene fingerprints are entered by the AFIS technician for a search against the database. The system has the ability to compare stored crime scene fingerprints against new offenders’ fingerprints being entered into the database.

Since the acquisition of its current workstation in 1991, close to 7,000 entries have been accumulated in the OCRPS database. The fingerprint identifications, or "hits", continue to increase annually, resulting in a tremendous investigative tool to all sections of the Police Service. In particular, the Break and Enter Section has realized an increase in solved cases directly attributable to AFIS.

In 1991, the first major hit resulted from an investigation of a shooting at a family restaurant. The complainant was shot through the neck and the suspect fled the scene. A fingerprint raised from the suspect’s drinking glass was identified within ten minutes of entry on AFIS. The most notable hit was in February of 1998 when a shoplifter from the Rideau Centre was brought to the police station by a suspicious patrol officer. The fingerprints were entered on AFIS and within minutes it was discovered that the shoplifter was wanted in British Columbia for two homicides.

In Canada, AFIS technology is provided by two companies, NEC and Printrak. NEC is in use at the Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg Police Services. Searches can only be conducted within that database. There is no capability for searching against the RCMP national database. Printrak, the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service’s current and proposed provider is also the source for most other large police agencies in Canada. The OCRPS database of 7,000 is a shared portion of the Metro Toronto database of 304,000 accused persons. In addition to search access to the RCMP database of 2.7 million individuals, the OCRPS also has direct search capabilities to BC AFIS and Sureté du Québec databases. The growing strength of this network is illustrated by an increasing number of hits between member police agencies.

The life expectancy for the workstation hardware is seven years. The OCRPS AFIS system will soon be starting its ninth year. The original maintenance agreement with Printrak has expired and the Service is proceeding on a month to month basis. From September to December 1998, the system experienced a total of 50 days down time. The age of the system results in mechanical break-down of parts which are now obsolete, though Printrak has been extremely cooperative in efforts to solve equipment problems.

The Service’s current AFIS workstation is not year 2000 compliant. The AFIS 2000 workstation installed in Toronto is the same workstation proposed for the OCRPS. Comprehensive Y2K testing conducted over a ten-day period has proven the workstation to be Y2K compliant.

There are two purchase options available to the OCRPS to acquire an AFIS 2000 workstation. Option number 1 is an outright purchase for $152,500 U.S.. In addition, there are costs associated with annual maintenance, which are included in the Forensic Identification section’s operating budget.

Option number 2 is a purchase with COPS replacement after 5 years at $300,015 U.S.. COPS stands for Customer Obsolescence Prevention Program which provides for the option of acquiring an updated workstation once within a five year period as technology develops. There’s an annual user fee for storage and retrieval of service finger prints on the Ontario AFIS network. Currently, this cost is at $18,450 Canadian. The amount is based upon the number of sworn officers in the OCRPS. Staff are recommending the first option. Deputy Chief Bevan indicated the funds for the $152,500 purchase are contained within the RMOC’s Y2K budget and have been allocated to this acquisition.

Member Baskerville requested an analysis of the pros and cons of the two options. Deputy Chief Bevan explained staff originally intended to present the option that included the obsolescence replacement program because there was very little difference in the price between the two options. However, when Printrak brought back new costing figures, the price of the obsolescence program became almost double the cost of the outright purchase. Staff feel it would be in the best interest of the Service to make the outright purchase at a cost of $152,000 U.S.. He felt the pace at which technology is changing may provide further options in the future. Though he acknowledged Printrak has proven itself in many Canadian police organizations to be the most reliable equipment, that situation may change.

Member Buckingham wanted a better understanding of the financial differences between the two options over their life cycle, and requested clarification on the maintenance costs associated with each option. Inspector Durand indicated there is a considerable difference; with the outright purchase, the annual maintenance costs are approximately $18,000 U.S. and do not commence until a year after the purchase date. With the obsolescence program, the yearly maintenance costs are close to $32,000 U.S. and commence immediately. Member Buckingham suggested that for future presentations, it would be very useful to provide a slide that shows the difference in all the costs over the life span of the two options.

Member Buckingham wondered if staff had a sense of the expected life span of the equipment and potential upgrading costs. Inspector Durand indicated Printrak had advised that the system would need to be upgraded after five years, although staff felt it could be useful beyond that.

In response to comments from Member Buckingham with regard to the wide price difference between the two options, Deputy Chief Bevan explained that originally the costing was relatively attractive and staff were going to bring those numbers to the Board with a recommendation to accept the proposal. However, when Printrak revised those figures, staff felt the option was no longer viable. In light of the speed with which technology is changing, it is impossible to know what options might be available in the future and the obsolescence program would have locked the Service in to a long term agreement with this particular vendor and their product.

Councillor Legendre liked the rationale put forward by Deputy Chief Bevan. He believed it is very difficult to see that far ahead in terms of the evolution of technology. He also felt that given the fact that the dollars per unit capability is on the decline, it makes no sense to pay an equivalent price five years hence for the same system as today. Also, he couldn’t imagine the vendor writing a contract promising the latest technology and being able to define it so that the Service would know five years hence that it was getting top of the line equipment for the price paid today.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board approve the purchase of an AFIS 2000 (Automated Fingerprint Identification System) Workstation from Printrak International.

CARRIED

3. UPGRADING THE PBX TELEPHONE SWITCH IN 474 ELGIN STREET

- Director General’s report dated 15 Dec 98

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board authorize the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service (OCRPS) to enter into negotiations with Bell Canada and award a contract to upgrade and maintain the OCRPS PBX Telephone Switch Systems on a sole-sourced basis, subject to satisfactory pricing, terms, conditions to an upset limit of $407,100, taxes included.

CARRIED

 

4. 1998 THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT

- Director General’s report dated 17 Dec 98

Referencing Annex B which lists the contracts issued during the third quarter, Member Buckingham believed that purchase orders for materials should also be listed under this category and was surprised that there would have been no requests for supplies over $10,000 during the third quarter. S. Kanellakos explained Annex B lists only contracts for professional services and other specific contracts that the Service would sign to enter into an agreement with a vendor. The table does not include purchases for regular supplies between $10,000 and $75,000.

Member Buckingham noted that any recommendation to purchase goods for over $75,000 must come before the Board. She expected a similar treatment for goods between $10,000 and $75,000 as she believed a purchase order constitutes a contractual commitment. Mr. Kanellakos agreed that a purchase order is a contractual commitment, but explained that in developing the Finance and Administration Manual, it was not staff’s intent to report to the Board on every purchase order issued. However, he indicated staff would take direction from the Board.

Member Buckingham wondered about the process for selecting the firms listed in Annex B. Mr. Kanellakos indicated the process is delineated in the Finance and Administration Procedures Manual. He explained that a minimum of three contractors are interviewed for any award of contract for IT services. There is a list of vendors that the Service deals with and consults on any particular contract.

In response to a further question from Member Buckingham, S. Kanellakos confirmed it is staff’s intent to bring forward quarterly reports on a regular basis from now on.

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

RECEIVED

5. YEAR 2000 READINESS

- Chief’s memorandum dated 15 Dec 98

- verbal presentation by G. Geddes and Inspector K. Erfle

G. Geddes, Director, Year 2000 Program, Region of Ottawa-Carleton, gave a detailed presentation on the status of the Year 2000 Project. A copy of his presentation is held on file with the Board’s Executive Director and is available upon request.

In response to a question from Councillor Legendre with regard to testing for year 2000 compliance, Mr. Geddes explained there is an extensive list of standard dates used in testing and there are different ways of testing depending on the type of system and its interdependency on other systems. Some of the standard dates include January 1, 1999 because traditionally the number 99 in a date field was indicative of it being either an invalid record or some type of control sequence within a system. Systems are also tested for August 21, 1999, which is not a year 2000 related date, but a date upon which there will be a turn over in the global positioning system satellites which are tied to a lot of IT systems. September 9, 1999 is the first time the sequence 9, 9, 99 appears in a date. February 29, 2000 is a significant number because of the leap year.

In response to a question from Member Buckingham with regard to the definition of an asset, Mr. Geddes indicated the term would include any item, battery operated or electric, that would require the processing of date related information.

Member Buckingham wondered how many assets have already been identified within the Police Service in terms of potential or known year 2000 problems. Though Mr. Geddes did not have an exact number, he estimated that at the end of the inventory the project team will have identified approximately 300 unique items within the Police Service’s inventory.

Given that every Police Service around the world is dealing with similar issues, Member Buckingham wondered to what extent the Service is interacting with other agencies. Inspector K. Erfle noted that due to the recent amalgamation, the Service is fortunate in that a number of its systems, such as CAD, RMS, and the radio system, have recently been replaced. With regard to interacting with other police agencies, he indicated he sits on a committee made up of representatives from the RCMP, Sureté du Québec and the OPP. In addition, the RCMP has set up a task force to deal with issues surrounding electronic communication between police agencies across the country.

In response to a question from Member Buckingham with regard to the cost of outfitting every sworn officer for uniform duty in the first three months of 2000, D. Frazer indicated an initial estimate has put the cost in the area of $150,000 to $200,000. The Service is exploring funding options through the Region since this has been identified as a one-time, Y2K related expenditure.

Member Buckingham requested that future progress reports be distributed as part of the agenda package to ensure Board members have the opportunity to read them.

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

RECEIVED

6. CONSTABLE RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION

- Chief’s report dated 15 Dec 98

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board enter into an agreement with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) and the Ministry of Solicitor General and Correctional Services to administer the Constable Selection System as a Model 2 agency for the purpose of screening police applicants.

CARRIED

7. CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT (BILL 98)

- Director General’s report dated 15 Dec 98

Member Buckingham questioned the value of doing such lobbying now when the Act introducing the changes has already been enacted.

Chair Vice believed that this is something people would like to see reinstated into development charges. He felt police vehicles are a legitimate item to be included in development charge calculations and saw no harm in supporting the Big 12 on this issue.

Member Buckingham felt that should the Board support the recommendation, a letter should also be sent directly to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the OAPSB should be asked to participate in lobbying as well.

Member Boudreau believed that when legislative changes are being made, some aspects or situations are forgotten. She did not believe the province intentionally excluded police vehicles from the development charges legislation, but that it had been an oversight. She agreed with Member Buckingham’s suggestion with regard to expanding the scope of the lobbying.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board request that the "Big 12" Boards and the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards lobby the provincial government for reinstatement of the Development Charges legislation which permits new police vehicles related to growth to be assessed as part of municipal development charge calculations, and also write directly to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

CARRIED as amended

 

8. IMPACT OF LOCAL TELEPHONE SERVICE DE-REGULATION

- Chief’s report dated 4 Dec 98

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board support the Toronto Police Services Board’s initiative by sending a letter to the Federal Minister of Industry requesting that a mandate be developed for the Number Portability Administration Centre (NPAC) to include the registration of all wireless telephone numbers.

CARRIED

 

9. UPDATE ON BOARD POLICY FRAMEWORK

- Board Policy Sub-Committee report dated 15 Dec 98

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

RECEIVED

 

10. COMMENDATION LETTERS (November 1998)

- Chief’s report dated 14 Dec 98

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

RECEIVED

 

11. REGULAR REPORT FROM THE CHIEF AND OPP INSPECTOR

- verbal update from Chief B. Ford and Inspector L. Beechey

OPP Inspector L. Beechey reported on statistics from the RIDE program for the Kanata, Goulbourn and West Carleton areas. He indicated 7,500 vehicles were checked resulting in 39 12-hour suspensions being issued and 17 people being charged with impaired driving. He also updated the Board on the recently formed traffic unit in Kanata and Goulbourn. He noted the unit has been operating for approximately three months and 1,510 Highway Traffic Act charges have been laid.

In response to a question from Chair Vice with regard to comparisons between the Christmas RIDE program and those conducted at other times during the year, Inspector Beechey estimated the numb er of impaired driving charges are usually lower during the holiday season compared to the number of vehicles checked, though he did not have a comparison of the figures.

Chief Ford reported on the following items:

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

RECEIVED

 

INQUIRIES

1. Status of the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP)

Councillor Legendre explained that at a recent community meeting, a staff member from the City of Ottawa who was also in attendance indicated she had participated in the STEP committee. She inquired as to the status of the program because she had not been convened to a meeting in approximately one year. The councillor wondered if the program was on-going. Deputy Chief Mackie confirmed the program is on-going and indicated he would follow-up on the matter to ensure there were no problems with communicating information to that member.

2. Handling of Break and Enter Crimes Under Differential Response System

Councillor Legendre understood from a briefing on the differential response system that if a crime has been committed and is over, a citizen calling the police to report the crime would be asked to make an appointment, perhaps the next day, to provide the police with the details of that crime. He wondered how such situations would be dealt with since at the time of making the call, a citizen may still be in danger. He presented a scenario in which a person returns home, realizes the house has been broken into and calls the police to report the crime. He speculated that person may still be in danger if the culprits are still on the premises. Chief Ford emphasized that every break and enter to a residence will continue to be responded to with an officer at the door.

Councillor Legendre also wondered if the forms required to report crimes could be made available on the internet so that citizens do not have to visit the police station. Deputy Chief Bevan responded the capability now exists with the Service’s new website to put report forms on-line. Staff are currently reviewing the feasibility of doing so.

3. Status of Report on Neighbourhood Alert Committee’s Recommendations

Member Buckingham inquired when the Board would be receiving a staff report on the recommendations put forward by the Neighbourhood Alert Committee at the 23 November 1998 meeting. Deputy Chief Mackie explained that Inspector Smith, the District Inspector for that area, is working on a report. He indicated staff are attempting to set up meetings with the community and he expected a report would be ready early in the new year.

4. Summary of Results from Residents’ Survey

Member Buckingham recalled a survey of residents had been conducted in the spring and wondered when the Board could expect a report summarizing the results. Dr. G. Johnson, Director, Corporate Planning, advised staff are in the process of tabulating the findings and should have a report to the Board by late spring.

5. Status of Report on Officers on Long-term Disability

Member Buckingham recalled that in the summer, Chief Ford had indicated he would be bringing forward a report on the number of officers on long-term disability and light duties. She wondered when the Board could expect to receive that report.

S. Kanellakos explained that through the Occupational Health Specialist and the Director of Human Resources, the Service has undertaken a complete review of all its policies related to Workers’ Compensation, long-term disability and all other similar situations. He indicated a report was presented to the executive last month for review and it is now being converted into a policy which staff will bring forward to the Board in the new year. However, he did not believe it would be ready in time for the January Board meeting. He added the report will include initiatives the Service is taking to manage such situations.

 

IN CAMERA

Moved by A. Boudreau

That the Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board move In Camera to discuss a personal matter, in accordance with Section 35(4)(b) of the Police Services Act.

CARRIED

 

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________ _____________________________

W. Fedec P. Vice

Executive Director Chair