Member Adam declared an interest with respect to Item 3 of the Agenda, 1999 Towing Contracts, as he represents one of the towing companies mentioned in the report.

Councillor Legendre referenced a passage on page 9 of the 22 Feb 99 minutes about a policy discussion on the provision of legal services. He believed there was information missing which pertained to a question of costs. The Councillor recalled that the speaker, Mr. Ray Ostiguy, of Gowling, Strathy and Henderson, had acknowledged there existed a potential for increased costs with the provision of independent legal services, and had also reflected there would be a potential for increased costs either way. Councillor Legendre said he wanted this reflected in the Minutes.

Chair Kreling said he too recalled a discussion about costs, and a comment that there were costs either way. He said this could be added to the Minutes.

Councillor Legendre also referenced a passage on page 11 of the 22 Feb 99 Minutes which stated, "Member Legendre suggested if there was any public mistrust or perception that the Board was in collaboration with the Service and would protect the Service at all means, the public’s confidence would diminish and the task of policing would be more difficult." He said he had difficulty understanding what was meant by "at all means".

Chair Kreling suggested that the tapes from the previous meeting could be reviewed with a view to clarifying the sentence.

Councillor Legendre also noted that on pages 13 and 16, the word "perimeters" should be replaced by "parameters".

OPP Inspector Larry Beechey, referencing page 4 of the 15 Mar 99 Minutes of the Board meeting in Goulbourn Township, noted a passage which referred to OPP Inspector Ron Lamothe. Insp. Beechey pointed out that Inspector Lamothe is with the Regional Police Service.

"DEVELOPING COMPETENCY:

A ROAD TO QUALITY AND RESULT-ORIENTED POLICING"

Due to inclement weather conditions, Dr. Hébert was unable to attend the meeting. His presentation will instead take place at the Board’s 31 May 99 meeting.

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

Councillor Legendre noted the Canada Safety Council has been requesting $1,000.00 in annual funding to produce the "Children Home Alone" booklet since 1997. He believed the original request had been for a one-time production, and that the booklet’s production and distribution would have been completed long ago.

Mr. J-Emile Therien, President, Canada Safety Council, informed the Board that the production of "Children Home Alone" and its French language equivalent is ongoing yearly. He said the Council makes 100,000 copies of this booklet available across the country, and that it tries to secure funding to allow this to be an ongoing project. Mr. Therien noted the booklet’s production was costly, but there is a tremendous demand in the Region for them which increases every year, hence the reason for the annual request for funding.

Superintendent Larry Hill, OCRPS, introduced Mr. Dick Nechtel, Auto Claims Division, Dominion of Canada Insurance Company. Mr. Nechtel has replaced Mr. Tony Lackey as the working group’s Insurance Industry representative. Supt. Hill then provided an overview of the staff report.

At the end of his presentation, Supt. Hill thanked the towing firms who were represented on the Towing Contract Steering Committee. He said the review process had been unique, and he extended the committee’s appreciation to the towing firms for their honesty and input.

Councillor Legendre noted Supt. Hill had indicated the contract expired in December of 1998, and that changes had been made to the fee schedule as part of an extension to the contract. The Councillor said he did not recall the fee changes coming to the Board.

Supt. Hill explained that no contract exists currently. The fees were negotiated on a verbal basis with the current contractors agreeing to carry the Service through from 31 Dec 98 to whenever the extension or the new procurement process begins. Responding to a question as to whether the current fees are significantly different from those negotiated in previous contracts, Supt. Hill answered that for one towing firm the fees are significantly different, and in two other cases they are close to the old fees.

Councillor Legendre believed the separation of towing services and compounds was a good idea, as he felt competition would otherwise be limited.

Supt. Hill did not believe the towing services and compounds could be separated by extending the current contract or by negotiating this term into it. He said it was currently a "one-package deal", and that a new procurement process would be required in order to effect the separation.

Councillor Legendre pointed out the report indicated the Legal Department had advised against including fixed prices in a contract. He noted this differed from past procedure, and asked what would be included in a re-tendered contract, and how costs would be controlled.

Supt. Hill explained costs would be set by the Service according to industry standards. He said the removal of price from the bidding process was suggested by the towing firms, who noted that low bids were entered in the past in order to acquire contracts, which then led to problems.

Councillor Legendre noted Supt. Hill had stated price was only one element of the towing contract, but the Councillor felt it was an important component, one which drove the competitive process with all other Regional tenders.

The Councillor noted a passage on page 12 of the agenda, which stated, "The OCRPS use towing services when members of the community request the Police Service to have vehicles removed, etc..." He said he had not believed the Service was involved in such activities, and questioned whether this also applied to parking lot operators who request that vehicles be towed because of unpaid parking fees.

Sergeant Rick Lavigne explained the Service is involved in removing vehicles from private property when vehicles are stolen, abandoned, or unplated. He said parking control officers will not ticket or tow vehicles without plates. With regard to parking lot operators, Sgt. Lavigne stated the Service had removed vehicles from parking lots in the past, but has not done so recently. He said parking control officers usually take care of this, but if a problem occurs after midnight, the Service might be called to take care of it.

Councillor Legendre referred to a media report regarding parking lot operators who had vehicles removed from their lots, then forced clients who wished to recover their vehicles to pay. He asked if this practice had any support under the law.

Supt. Hill responded the media report resulted from an instance in another municipality in which the towing company owned the parking lot. The company would remove a vehicle that was over the metered time, with no legislated authority other than the fact it owned the property. In this instance the vehicle owner was held accountable for towing costs. Supt. Hill explained this was not the case in Ottawa-Carleton, and that the staff report referred to private parking. For example, an apartment building parking lot where someone parks in another’s space, and the owner phones to have the offending vehicle removed. Supt. Hill said bylaw officers usually do this, and remove the vehicle under the Mechanic’s Lien Act. He confirmed that when a parking control officer or a police officer is involved, this authority exists, but in the case when neither is involved and a tow occurs, there is no lien, and a vehicle owner can recover their vehicle without paying the towing charge.

Vice Chair Baskerville asked for clarification regarding costs under the present contract that tow operators could charge the Service to have a vehicle towed, or charge an individual to have their vehicle towed when the police were involved.

Supt. Hill explained that the Service pays in most cases when it tows a vehicle for investigative purposes. He added that in instances where an individual is in a collision but does not have an auto club affiliation or a preferred towing firm, they often ask the Service to have the vehicle removed. Supt. Hill said this comes under the contract; the Service calls the towing company and the vehicle owner is then charged the police price.

Vice Chair Baskerville asked if smaller operators in the rural areas are presently able to meet Police Service requirements for compound facilities. He noted that part of the problem was that if the Service were to go with a new tendering and evaluation process, some operators might not be able to meet the requirements.

Supt. Hill said some firms are and some are not presently able to meet these needs. He noted that even if the Service were to go with a new procurement process, it might face a situation where the larger firms might be either unable or unwilling to separate their bids for towing services and compounds.

Responding to a question from Councillor Legendre, Mr. Nechtel, of the Dominion of Canada Insurance Company, stated that when he was invited to join the Tow Contract Steering Committee, his role was explained as being that of an advisor to represent the insurance industry’s perspective.

Councillor Legendre explained that when the Tow Contract Review Committee was formed, it was suggested a member of the Insurance Industry be included to represent the public’s interests. The Councillor said it was believed somebody from the Insurance Industry would be sensitive to the public’s view as opposed to that of either the towing industry or the Police Service.

Mr. Nechtel indicated he was comfortable with representing this view.

Mr. Michael Neville, Operations Manager for Acura, spoke on behalf of Mr. Mierins, who owns seven large import car dealerships, and also on behalf of the operations managers at these dealerships. Mr. Neville noted some dealers had received feedback from customers who were not happy with their towing experiences. He asked what criteria were used by police and tow operators to determine where a vehicle goes when it has been in an accident.

Supt. Hill explained that when a vehicle is involved in an accident and is not being held for investigative purposes, the owner or driver has the option of having it towed wherever they want.

Mr. Neville noted a number of customers had commented they were not asked where they wanted their vehicle towed, and because of the stresses involved when in an accident, might be unaware of what information they were given. He said he had received calls from customers in such situations who had no idea where their vehicles had been towed.

Chair Kreling said he appreciated that those involved in a collision would be under stress. However, he informed Mr. Neville the towing policy had been explained, and that it had been made clear the owner or driver of a vehicle has the right to direct where their vehicle will be towed and the choice of who performs the towing. They are under no obligation to use one of the three contractors in the current contract.

Mr. Neville asked when a customer does not have a preference whether it could be standard procedure to give them a business card or information sheet indicating where their vehicle is being taken.

Sgt. Lavigne explained that pages 4 and 5 of the accident form in current use throughout the province are given to the driver of the vehicle and indicates where the vehicle is being towed. In cases where drivers are incapacitated and taken to hospital, and do not receive a copy of these pages, Sgt. Lavigne said the Police Service would help them locate their vehicles’ end destination.

Councillor Legendre stated his preference was for Option B, a re-tendering of the contract this year, as he was not comfortable with either the current situation, or with it being extended. He said that when he heard the current situation had been extended and the fees adjusted, he was even less happy with extending it for a year’s time. The Councillor said that if the Board chose Option B, he would like to separate the towing and impounding functions as he felt these were fundamentally different items.

Vice Chair Baskerville stated that when this issue was discussed last year, the problem had been that the contract was coming to an end, with little time for input from tow operators. He said the legal advice received at that time was that the contracts could be extended by mutual agreement between all parties. The Vice Chair noted that both the towing operators and the Police Service had been willing to extend the contracts, with a change in prices. He said this was done to allow a review process to take place, otherwise, a decision would have to have been made without the Review Committee’s input.

Vice Chair Baskerville said two needs must be addressed. First, the needs of the Police Service to impound vehicles for investigations and to clear accident scenes, and second, the need to take care of the public interest so that individuals would not be taken advantage of by operators at emotional moments. The Vice Chair felt pricing based on industry standards was a reasonable compromise, but noted much staff work would be required to open up the process. He said that in the end, the situation might not be much different from the current one, as some operators would not have had time to comply with new standards for compound facilities. He said he would approve the recommendation to extend the current contract with pricing and service modifications to April 30, 2000 to meet the Service’s needs and to protect the public.

Chair Kreling thanked the members of the Tow Contract Review Committee for their efforts. He acknowledged this was a difficult topic, and felt that although this review process had been different from that of other jurisdictions, it would lead to positive results. He said he would support the staff recommendation, and explained his reason for doing so was to allow the smaller rural operators to address some of their concerns, which he felt had not been fully covered in the staff report. Chair Kreling said it is normal practice to renew contracts which have renewal provisions when there have been no problems. He noted there had been few complaints, in fact, fewer than a number of years ago. He added that this did not preclude individuals or companies involved in towing within the Region from preparing for future tendering processes. However, at this particular moment, Chair Kreling said he was not convinced that to retender would provide any benefit to the community or to the Police Service.

The Board then considered the staff recommendation.

CARRIED

YEAS: E. Buckingham, J. McCombie, G. Baskerville and H. Kreling....4

NAYS: J. Legendre....1

Councillor Legendre introduced a Motion directing the Chief to issue guidelines to the Service that officers provide clearer information to the public when a tow may be required and what their options are when it is not a police tow. The Councillor said his intent was that officers provide assistance without imposing a particular service on the client, and that an arm’s length relationship between the towing firm and the Service be maintained. He felt the Police Service would suffer if this delineation was not made clear.

Supt. Hill stated that the Traffic Services section is preparing presentations on this subject for patrol officers on their regularly scheduled training days. He said the Chief has recently issued an order with respect to private parking towing situations. Supt. Hill said the Chief could issue another order to clarify what discretion individuals have when their vehicle is not being towed for police impound purposes.

Councillor Legendre explained his Motion came about as the result of personal circumstances. He said he would speak to Supt. Hill to discuss the nature of the incident so that the situation could be addressed in a generic way, as he felt the problem was not related to a specific individual, but was of a more general nature.

That the Chief issue clear guidelines to the Service that police officers are to provide clear information and assistance to the public in the case of a private tow, and that an arms-length relationship be maintained in these cases.

CARRIED

The Board then considered the staff recommendation as amended.

That the Chief issue clear guidelines to the Service that police officers are to provide clear information and assistance to the public in the case of a private tow, and that an arms-length relationship be maintained in these cases.

CARRIED as amended

4. STRATEGIC ALLIANCE AGREEMENT & PARTNERSHIP WITH

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE FOR THE POLICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY INSTITUTE

Councillor Legendre said he had asked for charts of the total capital and total operating costs, setting out how much of the total amount was the Service’s and how much was Algonquin’s. The Councillor noted the Service’s costs were shown in the report, but confusion existed because of an existing arrangement with Algonquin. He also hoped that some of the training at the academic facility would be available in French as well as in English.

Chief Ford responded there were no plans to make training available in French. He explained the training was to be in-house with the Service’s instructors providing the vast majority of it. He added that presently the service gives supervisory courses as well as courses on advanced patrol, police ethics, problem-oriented policing, and seminars on retirement and effective presentation. The Chief said the Service also regularly liaises with community groups such as the Alzheimer’s Society and others to provide courses on officers’ regular training days; however, all of this training is in English.

Responding to a question from Councillor Legendre as to whether there was any plan to offer courses in French if there were sufficient requests, the Chief noted the Service has two bilingual officers involved in the Service’s in-house training. He added that some French instruction was occasionally given in the Service’s "Use of Force" class.

Cathy Frederick, Director, Human Resources, OCRPS, added that in classes given by bilingual in-house trainers, a one-on-one opportunity for instruction existed if there were problems, but that classroom instruction was in English.

Chief Ford said the Service has also been involved in preliminary discussions with Cité Collégiale to examine mentoring partnerships with the students taking the Cité’s Law & Security course. The Chief also noted the Service is entering into a partnership with the Cité for its French language training for officers.

Councillor Legendre said he hoped that when the Service reviews its bilingual policy later this year it will, where possible, and where it would make no difference in cost, allow people to take training in French. He said he understood the working language of the Service is English, but noted the Service wants to have and maintain a bilingual ability. The Councillor felt this was an artificial goal if the use of this ability was forbidden, or if French language training opportunities were not taken advantage of. Councillor Legendre said he would feel more comfortable if the alliance with Algonquin College was sufficiently flexible to permit training in French to occur. The Chief indicated this flexibility would exist.

Mike Rushton, Director of Physical Resources, Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology, addressed Councillor Legendre’s request for cost charts. He explained Algonquin’s share of the project is approximately $9 million out of a total cost of approximately $14 million. He said the operating arrangements will be very similar to those described in the agreement for the OCRPS. Mr. Rushton stated Algonquin will be paying operating costs on its dedicated portion, some 55% of the total space, and the OCRPS will pay operating costs on approximately 20% of the total space dedicated to the Service. A remaining 25% of the space is to be shared.

Mr. Rushton explained the total square footage referred to is approximately 60,000 net assignable square feet. He said operating costs would be calculated each year based on actual costs, to be shared in accordance with the amount of space used by either party. Although Mr. Rushton acknowledged the building has not yet been built and gross space has not yet been determined, he said the figures he had given could be used for budget purposes.

Ms. Debra Frazer, Director of Financial Services, OCRPS, referred to the 60,000 square foot figure and explained that of this total, the OCRPS would have 12,000 square feet of dedicated space at roughly eight dollars per square foot. This would generate an annual operating cost of roughly $96,000.00. She noted the space shared with Algonquin is roughly 16,000 square feet, of which the OCRPS would share 60%. She noted this calculation was slightly different than provided by Mr. Rushton. At eight dollars per square foot, this would represent another $77,000.00 a year to operate, leading to a total of roughly $173,000.00 for the OCRPS. She noted these were the figures cited on page 16 of the agenda under the "operating costs" section.

Vice Chair Baskerville asked the Chief to comment on the long-term strategy for the facility, given the changes in the police learning system in Ontario and that the OCRPS is moving towards a police foundation training system. The Vice Chair noted this will be the primary mode for new police recruits. Initial academic training would be undertaken at a community college, to be followed by practical instruction at the Ontario Police College (OPC).

Chief Ford explained the new recruitment process for police officers in Ontario. He said Algonquin College has already signed with the Ministry of the Solicitor General to provide a Constable Selection Program as part of the Police Learning Program. It is also authorized to deliver a one-year Police Foundations Learning Program to provide training and insight into the application process for policing and what those entering police services can expect.

The Chief also noted the Ministry of the Solicitor General has recognized Eastern Ontario’s situation with regard to the problems associated with availability of space at the OPC for the training of recruits. Chief Ford said he had discussed using the Algonquin facility with the Chiefs of Belleville and Kingston as their Services would also be undertaking police foundation training. The Chief believed it might be possible, in future, to do all recruit training at Algonquin College, which would result in a savings of about $2,000.00 per recruit for the OCRPS. He suggested that some of the Service’s supervisory and other technical courses currently provided through the Ontario Police College could be downloaded to Algonquin by using the OPC’s curriculum to supply the courses and the training of instructors. Chief Ford concluded that the Service would be able to offer courses locally that it could not acquire spaces for at the OPC because of demand from across the Province.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board approve for execution a Strategic Alliance Agreement as negotiated between the OCRPS and Algonquin College outlining the terms and conditions of a partnership association between the two organizations and the terms and conditions and payment schedule for the construction of a new facility that is to be called The Police and Public Safety Institute.

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES MANUAL

Member Buckingham wondered if this item was before the Board because the current Finance and Administration Procedures (FAP) manual had been adopted by the Board through a by-law. She felt the current manual went into much more internal administrative detail than the Board needed to deal with. She had no difficulty with many of the proposed changes, such as the use of procurement cards and corporate credit cards which were a standard business practice. She noted the Board was currently reviewing its overall policy framework and felt that once it was in place, there would not be a need to bring matters like this forward.

Ms. Frazer noted the first FAP manual was adopted by the Board under By-Law No. 1 of 1996, and that any changes to it would require an amending by-law to adopt the changes. She referred Member Buckingham’s query to legal staff to determine what would be required to change the legislative component.

Eric Johnston, Acting Regional Solicitor, explained the existing manual was adopted by
by-law, and said that when consulted on this point, he had advised an amendment to the by-law would be required. However, he noted that the Board could, in future, alter its approach to these practices and utilize other delegated authority vehicles.

Member Buckingham hoped that within six months the Board will have moved towards this end.

Vice Chair Baskerville noted the Region has opted for SAP, and said he understood the Service’s Human Resources management system was tied into a PeopleSoft system. The Vice Chair asked if the Service was going to be replacing its PeopleSoft system.

Ms. Frazer explained she is a member of the Genesis Steering Committee which helped to oversee the SAP project. She said SAP was selected because it could effectively integrate with PeopleSoft, the Pay and HRIS system used throughout the Region and OCRPS. Ms. Frazer said members of the Genesis project will evaluate SAP to decide how well it functions in terms of pay and HRIS, and whether it makes sense for the Region to implement other aspects of SAP, although there are no immediate plans to do so. She suggested that whether the pay system is identified as an issue will depend on the availability of financial resources and whether the SAP pay product is superior.

Vice Chair Baskerville said he raised the issue because he has been made aware of problems with the PeopleSoft program. He believed the view of the Police Service was that the Region was sorting out the problem. The Vice Chair asked whether there were ongoing problems with the PeopleSoft HR system and if so, how they would be addressed.

Ms. Frazer explained that PeopleSoft keeps track of payroll, does some timekeeping, and is an HRIS system. She said the Financial Services group is involved with the timekeeping and pay system aspects. Ms. Frazer noted that at the Board’s 25 Jan 99 meeting, the Board adopted a new timekeeping and attendance scheduling system to enhance the system. She felt this new software, together with PeopleSoft, would provide the Service with a superior time attendance and scheduling product. Ms. Frazer said Financial Services staff have been very pleased with the reliability and results of the pay aspect of PeopleSoft.

Ms. Frederick added that the primary purpose of implementing PeopleSoft was to use it as a pay system. She explained the Service has not yet fully explored it from an Human Resources perspective. Ms. Frederick said she was exploring how the system could be better utilized for management purposes, noting that some of the frustrations experienced to date were simply the result of familiarizing staff with the system and how to utilize the information. In reference to Ms. Frazer’s comments that SAP was the system that would ultimately be looked at, Ms. Frederick noted this option, based on people’s experience, still existed, although there were no immediate plans to make a transition.

Vice Chair Baskerville thanked the speakers and explained that he did not want the Board to be confronted with surprises in its capital budget in the near future resulting from having to make a transition to a new HR system.

Councillor Legendre said his reaction to the level of detail in the report had been similar to that of Member Buckingham. He said he believed the aspects of delegation contained in the report were within the purview of the Chief. He then introduced the following Motion:

Speaking to his Motion, Councillor Legendre referenced page 30 of the agenda which pertained to Annex 2 of the FAP, under General Travel Expenses. He said this would serve to bring Section 1.1, Mode of Transportation, into closer conformity with the Region’s FAP manual, by making economy airfare the ceiling in all cases involving transportation. Councillor Legendre then moved the following:

Speaking to his second Motion, Councillor Legendre referenced page 34 of the agenda pertaining to Section 8, Unacceptable Claims for Reimbursements, also under General Travel Expenses. He noted Section 8.1 stated "Expenses connected with stop-overs at resorts, or other places while not on duty will not be allowed for reimbursement." He noted that airlines often require an individual to either stay over a Saturday or pay more for a ticket. Councillor Legendre felt that including the degree of latitude he suggested might result in significant savings.

Member Buckingham referenced page 20 of the agenda which spoke to the use of corporate cards, noting the indication that users could receive per diems through cash advances from the card. She inquired whether calculations had been performed to determine if the interest associated with cash advances was less than the cost of processing travel advances.

Ms. Frazer said her understanding was that there would be no interest charged; balances were to be paid in full each month.

Member Buckingham noted the normal practice with most credit cards was that interest charges start accumulating immediately in the case of cash advances.

Ms. Frazer said it was her impression, under the arrangements the Service has with its banker, that there would not be any interest charges associated with the cash advances, although she said she would have to confirm this detail.

Member Buckingham next referenced page 21 of the agenda regarding the purchase and acquisition of items between $5,000.00 and $25,000.00. She acknowledged there was a desire to streamline the purchasing process, but was concerned about the suggested elimination of the requirement for three bids. Member Buckingham noted prices could vary widely, depending upon whether or not a firm knew it was competing with other firms. She felt that when spending public money, there was an obligation to shop around.

Ms. Frazer explained that one of the objectives of Genesis was to refine and streamline these processes. She said that benchmarking exercises against other organizations of similar size showed that the Police Service had adopted very conservative business practices. She said that in order to achieve the objectives of reducing turnaround time on financial transactions and eliminating duplication and paper handling time, it was necessary to examine some of these areas. She added that because the Service’s buying was very repetitive, staff had much experience in the market, and that adopting measures such as this would help in achieving the stated objective of faster turnaround.

Member Buckingham then asked how often staff would verify that a price being quoted was still competitive. She felt that it was good for an organization to periodically ask for multiple quotes to confirm that the right decision was being made.

Ms. Frazer indicated this practice would have to be built in. She offered the example of the buying plan currently being drawn up for items purchased by the quartermaster. Ms. Frazer explained that because these items tend to be the same year after year, staff were very much aware of what the best prices were. She noted the vendors who did not receive the Service’s business were quick to let the Service know if prices changed. She said staff would work to ensure business was being well distributed, that the Service was getting good value for its purchases, and to ensure that prices were continually checked.

Member Buckingham indicated these issues could further be addressed as the Board moved forward with its policy framework. She acknowledged that it was necessary to take into account the amount of time and money likely to be saved, but that it was necessary to balance this with periodic verification.

There being no further discussion, the Board then considered the following amendments from Councillor Legendre:

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

The Board then considered the staff recommendation as amended.

1. Section 3.2.4 - Purchase of Materials, Goods or Services

2. Section 3.3.2 - Travel

Chair Kreling then asked for a Motion to approve the amended By-Law.

Moved by Councillor Legendre

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board approve By-law No. 1 of 1999 as amended, being a by-law to amend the original Finance and Administration Procedures Manual By-law No. 1 of 1996.

Member Buckingham noted the Provincial Government appears to have chosen to implement all the recommendations contained in Justice George Adams’ study of SIU problems. She reminded members that the Board had written to the Ministry of the Attorney General in the fall of 1998 in support of the recommendations. Member Buckingham suggested the Board might want to consider writing to the Minister again to commend him for having implemented them. She asked Chief Ford if he could suggest anything else that should be included in a letter, in addition to requesting that the SIU receives the resources it requires to do its job. She stated it was good to have the policy and regulations in place, but that they would be of little use without the necessary financial resources to back them up.

Chief Ford replied that the regulation was passed as a Government in Council regulation, and that the Police Service had little opportunity for input. The Chief noted, however, that the suggestion for additional SIU funding was made at a policy meeting in Orillia at which he was represented by Mr. Vince Westwick, General Counsel.

Mr. Westwick explained he had not seen the actual documentation, but understood there had been an internal government recommendation that the funding for the SIU be substantially increased, although he was unaware of the actual figure.

Member Buckingham felt it might still be beneficial for the Board to write to the Minister reminding him the SIU needs increased funding to carry out its job, and that the Board understood the recommendation was that the SIU’s budget be increased.

Chief Ford said his office would draft a letter for the Board Chair’s signature.

Councillor Legendre referred to page 40 of the agenda, drawing the Board’s attention to Regulation No. 673, Sections 8, 9 and 10, which stated, "These Sections dictate the circumstances under which an officer must produce notes and the circumstances under which a witness officer must make him/herself available for an interview with the SIU. The Section states that notes and interviews can be demanded by SIU on 24 hours notice." He noted that this passage was clear, but said he had difficulty in understanding the last part, which continued, "There is no provision compelling a subject officer to submit to an interview by SIU or to turn his notes over to SIU but the subject officer must complete notes." The Councillor felt the first part of the paragraph had indicated there was a compunction to submit to an SIU interview and to turn over notes. He asked that this be clarified, and inquired whether there were circumstances under which officers could refuse to comply.

Mr. Westwick explained the regulations were attempting to strike a balance between the rights of officers to remain silent under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that being the protection of their right not to produce incriminating evidence by their own hand, and the rights of a police service to find out what happened. He noted that this was a problem area, and that past tensions had resulted when in some jurisdictions, police officers had refused to comment, leaving their police service in a situation where details were unknown. Mr. Westwick felt it was in the public interest for the police service to know the details of an incident so that appropriate action could be taken which would have nothing to do with the culpability of an officer. He further explained the legislative régime the province has put in place requires that all officers must complete their notes, and that these notes can be demanded by SIU within 24 hours of a demand being made.

Mr. Westwick also said it was necessary to distinguish between a witness officer and a subject officer. He explained that subject officers’ notes can never be demanded by the SIU, and that subject officers cannot be compelled to make themselves available for an interview; this was only the case with witness officers. He further noted that if an officer was originally identified as a witness officer whose notes were turned over to the SIU, if the SIU changed the officer’s designation to subject officer, the regulations provided that the notes had to be returned to the police service.

Councillor Legendre felt this was a useful clarification, and asked that the paragraph in question be clarified in writing, as there might be a need to reference it in future.

Chair Kreling suggested that this be done, and asked that it be distributed to Board members and attached to the report for the record. Mr. Westwick said he would be pleased to do so.

Referring to Section 5 on page 40 of the agenda, Vice Chair Baskerville noted the regulation spoke of the SIU being the lead investigator in any SIU incident. He noted a further reference to an investigation under Section 11, and said it appeared that a number of investigations could take place resulting from one incident. He asked how many parallel investigations could result based on one incident.

Mr. Westwick explained there existed a potential for three investigations to result from one incident. There could be an SIU investigation; a compulsory "Section 11" investigation to be conducted by Professional Standards into the kind of issues covered under Part 5 of the Police Services Act; and a third possible investigation referred to as "third party criminal activity", which would occur if the person injured by the police action was involved in a criminal action.

RECEIVED

Councillor Legendre referred to the recommendation which stated in part, "those individuals whose names have been submitted to the Chief of Police". He noted the names of the individuals were not included in the report and questioned why the item would require the Board’s approval, if the individuals were not being named.

Chair Kreling advised the names were not included in the report, pursuant to regulations of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). He requested staff of the Legal Department to expand on this.

Valerie Bietlot, Legal Department, stated although the Board can disclose information about its employees (i.e. capacity of employment, duties, etc.), in this instance, the persons referred to are not technically employees of the Board. They are special constables that come from other bodies, (i.e. Carleton University) and therefore, the Board does not have the authority to disclose personal information about them.

Member Legendre questioned why the Chief of Police could not deal with this matter, without involving the Board. Eric Johnston, A/Regional Solicitor, responded the appointment of special constables is required as a function of the Board under the Police Services Act. He noted in the past, these reports were dealt with In Camera because the names cannot be revealed in public.

Chair Kreling stated this was an example in which the Board has an obligation under the Police Services Act to do something, while at the same time, MFIPPA requires that certain things be kept in confidence. He felt the only meaningful way to deal with this situation was to consider it in camera. The Chair went on to say the item had been placed on the public agenda as a result of pressures from the Board to deal with as much as possible in public.

Member Buckingham said it would appear from the Chief’s Motion that approval is necessary so the special constables at Carleton have the authority to continue what they are presently doing. She suggested in this instance, the Board approve the report as presented, in open session, and that in the future such items be dealt with In Camera with the names included.

Member Legendre pointed out the Motion would become meaningful if it even indicated a category of employees at Carleton; as presented, the Motion meant nothing and he questioned the legality of it.

At this juncture, Member Buckingham asked that the question on the Motion be put and the Board considered the Motion.

Carried

(J. Legendre dissenting)

Chief Ford presented the Board with an overview of the report, noting it provided a quick inventory of the services provided by the Ottawa-Carleton Police relative to the Provincial Adequacy Standards. He said this was just part of the process the Police were undertaking, and he noted a report would be before the Board in May outlining the business plan schedule as it relates to the adequacy standards and the consultation process (e.g. the report will identify the human resources requirements for consultation and what will be required internally by the Police Service and the Board to January 2001).

Member Buckingham stated the report contained some very good and detailed information. However, she pointed out a number of instances where it indicated a function both met the standard and was deficient. She asked how this was possible.

Dr. Gail Johnson, OCRPS, stated this was done to identify the areas in which the standards were being met, but formalization was required (e.g. development of and/or putting in place a policy or procedure).

Member Buckingham pointed out it would appear from reading the report that the area of Criminal Investigation would require the most work, particularly the areas of external reporting and external relations. She asked if this would be a reasonable assessment.
G. Johnson agreed but pointed out most of the new standards were actually met in the Criminal Investigative Services; it would just be a matter of putting in a formal policy or procedure.

Referencing page 61 of the agenda, Member Buckingham noted it appeared staff had erroneously assumed Section 10 of the Adequacy Standards applied to the area of Criminal Investigation as the sections preceding it and following it dealt with this area. She felt the proposed standards of the availability of 24 hour supervision and appropriate knowledge, skills and abilities for supervision should instead apply broadly across the service.

Noting Member Buckingham’s concern, Dr. Johnson agreed staff would revisit this area and make the necessary changes.

Vice Chair Baskerville commended staff on the work they did and observed it put Ottawa-Carleton in a pro-active position as opposed to reacting to directives from the Province. The Vice Chair then asked if staff would provide the Board, at the next meeting, with an estimate of the additional personnel resources that will be required to make both the Board and the Police Service compliant with respect to policies and procedures. Dr. Johnson advised this would be part of the report, referred to earlier by the Police Chief, that will be presented to the Board for approval in May. This report will identify the internal requirements and whether or not external resources will be required to carry them out.

Councillor Legendre noted the report indicated the deadline for receipt of applications had been extended to April 22, 1999, yet the letters and posters attached to the report did not mention this. He asked if the groups who were targeted in the outreach program had been made aware of the extension.

David Pepper, Director, Community Development, OCRPS drew the Board’s attention to the top of page 76 which outlines the additional outreach (e.g. media advisory, telephone follow-up with designated universities, colleges and high schools, promotion through existing District networks and paid advertising), that will occur in response to the extension of the deadline.

Member Buckingham noted the Review Committee’s work performed in the fall of 1998 led to a great deal of discussion and a greater understanding of issues. She said the Draft Policy Manual contained extensive footnotes which attempt to explain the way in which many of the items were driven by legislation, and the regulatory framework within which police services and boards must operate. She felt it was beneficial to set aside a specific time to deal with the review, and to perhaps perform it over several sessions. She said although work could be spread over several months, it would be best to deal with it before the summer, as other work would be forthcoming in the fall. She felt the immediate question related to accommodating people’s schedules and choosing dates for the review.

Chair Kreling thanked member Buckingham for her suggestions. He then asked members of the Board for their preferences with respect to the timing and scheduling of the review sessions. It was generally felt that late afternoon or early evening commencements were preferable, and that it would also be preferable to schedule sessions for earlier in the week rather than later. The Executive Director was asked to arrange a schedule in consultation with Board members.

OPP Inspector Larry Beechey reported the OPP had investigated an airplane crash last Thursday in the Township of West Carleton where two people had been killed. He also stated the OPP had just completed a very detailed survey of 362 residents in Kanata. Insp. Beechey said he hoped to present the survey results at the Board’s next regular meeting.

Chief Ford also advised that Ian Davidson, a 20 plus year veteran of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service, would be joining the Sudbury Regional Police Service as of 18 April 99, in the rank of Superintendent. The Chief expressed the OCRPS’ sadness at seeing Inspector Davidson leave but explained it is an excellent career move for him and would permit the Inspector to be closer to his family living in Sudbury. Chief Ford wished Inspector Davidson well.

Board Chair Kreling thanked Inspector Davidson for his years of service and wish him well in his new position.

Vice Chair Baskerville, referring to the fixed wing aircraft project, stated he would like to see a clear statement of capability and deficiency, what this proposal will be able to address that cannot be done now, all of the associated costs, both capital and operating, and what the net increase will be in long term budget.

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

RECEIVED

14. PRE-CHARGE DIVERSION PROGRAM

- Chief’s report dated 22 Mar 99

As this item was a late addition to the agenda, Chair Kreling asked the Board to suspend the Rules of Procedure to allow consideration of this item. The Board agreed. The Chair then asked for Police staff comments regarding the Pre-Charge Diversion Program (PCDP).

Deputy Chief Bevan explained the Police Service has been working with the Salvation Army in an attempt to save the PCDP, which has been operating successfully in the Ottawa-Carleton region for more than six years. He said funding problems were first identified in November of last year and they were not going to be able to continue long-term. At that time, money was found in the Police budget to continue to subsidize the program until the present, on the hope further grants would be found to continue this very worthwhile program. However, the money has not been found to date.

The Deputy Chief advised he was told PCDP will have to lay staff off and cease operations on the 31st of March. He said this would have a significant impact on Police Services operationally, because they would have to prepare court documents and case briefs for a number of charges that are now diverted. As well, it will create an extra burden on the court system, and will require more officers in court for longer periods of time, which will have a dollar cost associated with it.

Deputy Chief Bevan stated staff were asking the Board to endorse, in principle, the continuation of the PCDP. He said the Police Service will be working with the Salvation Army and other community partners to put appropriate pressure on the Provincial government to find some source of funding to continue the program. As well, staff are looking within the Police budget to see if some form of subsidy is available for this program. They are also looking at innovative ways to work with their current partners so the program can continue.

Responding to questions from Councillor Legendre, Deputy Chief Bevan advised initially, the funding for this program came from the Ministry of the Attorney General. However, when that funding ceased, the Solicitor General’s Ministry provided some funding. He suggested the Motion not be directed to one particular ministry, but rather that it be an endorsement in principle so it could be presented to whichever body is identified as a source of funding.

Councillor Legendre expressed his support for this program and spoke of the human costs that would be involved should this program not continue. He suggested the Motion be sent directly to the Premier’s office as well.

Member Buckingham asked how much it would cost to run this program on an annual basis. Deputy Chief Bevan advised one proposal for a "scaled down version" that staff had been working on, would cost approximately $108,000.00.

Member Buckingham expressed her support for the Motion and felt it would be beneficial to forward letters (by facsimile) to the Premier’s office, the Attorney General’s office and the Solicitor General’s office indicating the Board’s support for the continuation of this program. She said she found it ludicrous that the government would cut funding of just over $100,000.00 to something that is extremely beneficial and is in their best interests to have in place.

Chair Kreling indicated staff would take this as a direction.

Vice Chair Baskerville suggested that copies of the letter also be sent to the area government MPPs such as Gary Guzzo, Norm Sterling and John Baird.

Councillor Legendre asked if the financial impact that cancellation of this program would have on OCRPS would be in the neighbourhood of $100,000.00. Deputy Chief Bevan advised the cost would likely be greater.

Councillor Legendre stated, in light of this information, he was contemplating a Motion that this program not be cancelled but rather, that OCRPS continue to fund it until the Province can be convinced to provide funding.

Chair Kreling said the Motion before the Board will have staff doing what they can to keep the program operating but OCRPS does not have money in their budget to fund this program. The Chair suggested it would be best for staff to come back in a month or two to advise on what they have been able to accomplish, and that any further action could be contemplated at that time.

Member Buckingham said, notwithstanding that this is a very valuable program that saves OCRPS money, she felt it was not within their mandate to fund the program. She said this program relates to the operation of the courts, which is a Provincial responsibility, and she expressed her support for pursuing funding from the Province.

Chair Kreling then read a Motion from Member Legendre, "That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service continue the Pre-Charge Diversion Program in anticipation that funding would be provided from the Province."

Speaking to his Motion, Councillor Legendre said he was not suggesting that the budget be arbitrarily increased, but staff have indicated the cancellation of this program will cause OCRPS to have a greater expenditure. This expenditure is going to happen whether OCRPS has budgeted for it or not and he felt it was in their best interest to continue the program, while pursuing funding from alternate sources.

Vice Chair Baskerville stated although he could understand Councillor Legendre’s reasoning, he felt the Board should have a better understanding of the impact this would have on the Police Service’s budget, before approving such a Motion. He noted if the funds could not be found within the Police budget, a request for additional funds would have to be submitted to Regional Council and the Member felt it was highly unlikely such a request would be approved. He said once the Board was provided with a much clearer definition of the cost impacts of both options (i.e. cancellation or continuation of the program), then it could deal with a Motion such as Councillor Legendre’s.

The Board then considered the Motions before it, beginning with the report recommendation.

CARRIED

Moved by J. Legendre

LOST

NAYS: D. Adam, E. Buckingham, J. McCombie, G. Baskerville, H. Kreling....5

Member Buckingham noted the Adequacy Standards outline how various services could approach other police services for the provision of certain functions and services. She asked Chief Ford when he could foresee bringing a report to the Board with a recommendation or analysis on the advantages and disadvantages of providing policing services to other jurisdictions within eastern Ontario.

Chief Ford explained the Service had already received such a query from the United Counties of Prescott-Russell, but that a reply had been sent back stating the OCRPS could not consider such a request until the amalgamation of policing services within Ottawa-Carleton had been completed in mid-July. He offered that the Board would not likely receive any guidance on this issue until the Fall.

Responding to further questions from Member Buckingham, Deputy Chief Mackie advised, with respect to the operational side of this issue, that a meeting was held approximately four weeks earlier with small police services within Zone 2, immediately adjacent to Ottawa-Carleton. The Deputy Chief explained it is OCRPS’s plan to hold meetings before the summer with other smaller police services to determine what their requirements would be. This would be included in staff’s assessment to the Board, if in fact these police services were looking to contract some services from Ottawa-Carleton.

Member Buckingham, referring to the Chief’s response to her previous questions, stated the Board would like to have this dealt with as a policy issue, so that when other requests come in, a policy is in place. She clarified she was trying to determine when a high level discussion would take place on the advantages and disadvantages of providing policing services. Chief Ford indicated the September Board meeting would likely be the most appropriate time.

Sue Clark, a social activist in Ottawa, appeared before the Board and stated the OCRPS does a good job most of the time, however, there have been occasions where people’s civil rights have been violated. As a result of these incidences, Ms. Clark will be heading an Ottawa-Carleton civil rights symposium (likely to take place in October), where citizens, police, lawyers and others will be invited to participate. The goal of the symposium would be to make it easier for citizens when they have to make a complaint to Police Standards and other bodies, so that they know their rights and their rights will be respected. Ms. Clark expressed her hope a working group could be established to work with police and other agencies to ensure the civil rights of all residents of Ottawa-Carleton.

Member Legendre noted the item numbers in the Motion were incorrect and should read items 2, 3, 4, and 5. He then asked that item 2 be separated out. The member stated it was his understanding an agreement had been essentially reached on this, and suggested it could be dealt with in the public session.

The Board Chair indicated he had no difficulty in separating the Motion.

With respect to items 3, 4, and 5, Member Legendre noted these items related to the community awards ceremony, the long service award recipients and the police exemplary service medal. He referred to a memorandum from the Legal Department which outlined the reasons, pursuant to MFIPPA, why this item should be dealt with in camera, but also stated it is ultimately the Board’s decision (i.e. "The Board may decide that the risk of being charged under MFIPPA is minimal and the desirably of releasing the names publicly outweighs the risk.") Member Legendre felt there was no point in granting these awards and then keeping it a secret; the whole point of the awards is to draw attention to the "good behaviour" exhibited.

Board Chair Kreling indicated this information would not be kept a secret. He explained the intent was for the Board to receive information on the nature of the awards and the names of individuals who would receive the awards. He pointed out these individuals have not been contacted and are currently unaware of the awards. He said to release the names in open forum could cause the Board to be on the wrong side of MFIPPA.

Valerie Bietlot, Solicitor, Legal Department, Region of Ottawa-Carleton, explained that if the Board would be considering the nominees, discussing the pros and cons of a particular person, and making a decision with respect to awarding the award, it must be done in camera or the Board has to have sought prior written consent to discuss it publicly.

Board Chair Kreling then drew the Board’s attention to the request to split the Motion. He asked the Board members to consider the Motion to go in camera for Item 2 and then consider items 3, 4 and 5.

Vice Chair Baskerville stated item 2 could be approved in open session, without discussion. He cautioned, however, if the Board had questions or amendments, the item should be considered in camera.

LOST

NAYS: D. Adam, E. Buckingham, J. Legendre, G. Baskerville, H. Kreling....5

YEAS: None....0

The Board then considered Item 2 of the Confidential Agenda.

2. APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE TIMELINE

FOR THE FRENCH LANGUAGE PROVISIONS

CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACT OF DEPUTY CHIEF V. BEVAN

Member Legendre indicated the employment agreement extends the timeline for Deputy Chief Bevan’s language training to September 30, 1999. He expressed his confidence that the Deputy Chief would meet and exceed the standards. The Member stated he was fully in agreement with the extension.

Board Chair Kreling also wished Deputy Chief Bevan well, saying he had made tremendous progress. He thanked the Deputy Chief for his commitment and stated the Board looked forward to his success.

Deputy Chief Bevan thanked the Board for their consideration of this matter and assured the Board no further extensions would be requested.

CARRIED as amended

The Board then considered the following Motion:

CARRIED