Chair: Councillor H. Kreling

Vice Chair: Mr. G. Baskerville

Members: Mr. D. Adam, Ms. E. Buckingham, Regional Chair B. Chiarelli, Councillor J. Legendre, Mr. J. McCombie

CARRIED

1. PUBLIC DELEGATIONS

2. INQUIRIES

3. CHIEF’S REPORT

Chief Bevan reported on the following items:

The goals of the PIA assembly are: to showcase District Policing through a key note address; to encourage increased community involvement and mobilization with respect to crime prevention and traffic management at a neighbourhood level; to rejuvenate Neighbourhood Watch groups and related neighbourhood security groups and expand membership to the Ottawa Neighbourhood Watch Coordinators’ Association; to provide enhanced partnership opportunities between various Neighbourhood Watch groups and the police service; and to be well positioned for the new City of Ottawa taking effect January 1, 2001.

RECEIVED

4. CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED) RECOMMENDATIONS TO NEW CITY COUNCIL

- Chief’s report dated 13 Oct 00

Deputy Chief A. Mackie introduced Sergeant W. VanRyswyk who has been actively involved with regional and municipal planners in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design project.

Sergeant W. VanRyswyk explained that Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a proactive crime fighting technique in which the proper design and effective use of a building and its surroundings lead to a reduction in crime and an improvement in the quality of life for citizens of the community. CPTED fundamentals include access control, surveillance and territoriality. The benefits of CPTED include reduced crime, reduced fear, reduced liability, improved quality of life, major cost savings, the formation of partnerships and the development of problem solving tools.

Prior to amalgamation each police agency (Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester and the OPP) had a contact person to review site and subdivision plans. Since September 1999, all eleven municipalities and the RMOC have been forwarding plans to the CPTED office which is staffed by one person.

The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service offers a level 1 CPTED course on a semi-annual basis. The training is delivered to police officers across Eastern Ontario and to municipal planners, architects, bylaw enforcement officers, city inspectors, community groups and corporations. The only other agency in Ontario currently offering such training is the Peel Regional Police Service.

CPTED reduces crime by taking a proactive approach. The eleven municipalities and the RMOC circulate draft site and subdivision plans to the CPTED office. Since September 1999, police have had input on over 200 plans. Providing input at the planning stage results in cost savings to property owners, the Police Service and the tax payers, and it limits liability concerns for new developments.

CPTED is also reactive in that it identifies "hot spots" through crime analysis, district inspectors, community groups and politicians. It recommends retrofits to existing properties and buildings.

In closing, Sergeant VanRyswyk gave a brief overview of CPTED plans and asked that the Police Services Board support and endorse recommendations contained in the Chief’s report.

Vice Chair Baskerville wondered whether training was being offered on a cost-recovery basis. Sergeant VanRyswyk explained that officers receive training in-house, however outside agencies have been charged for training on a cost-recovery basis.

In response to questions from Vice Chair Baskerville, Sergeant VanRyswyk explained that making the CPTED process compulsory for the approval of all new developments would require a process for handling all the requests that come forward. He indicated his office currently receives an average of ten site audits per day. The objective in offering the CPTED level 1 training is to ensure that all planners have the skills and knowledge to make some assessments on their own, so all site plans will not have to be forwarded to the CPTED office. He hoped the advisory committee, once established, will discuss implementing a strategy to look at making the CPTED a mandatory part of the development process.

Mr. D. Herweyer, Manager, RMOC Planning, felt it would be appropriate for CPTED principles to be incorporated into the new City of Ottawa’s Official Plan. He indicated that although the current Regional Official Plan contains general policies regarding safety, it is not officially recognized. He noted the need for policies outlining the types of developments to be reviewed by the Advisory Committee but he anticipated that, to some extent, that would form part of the new City’s Official Plan. He felt it would be appropriate for the Advisory Committee to make such recommendations, to be incorporated into the planning process as planning begins for the new City structure.

Chair Kreling noted the program has been used extensively in conjunction with OC Transpo and has been a great benefit in improving safety in public places. He wondered whether the recommendations should be brought to the attention of the Transition Board so they do not get left behind as the Board proceeds in making recommendations and putting structures in place. The Police Services Board agreed the recommendations should be brought to the attention of the Transition Board, noting its support of them and requesting that they be incorporated into plans for the new city.

Member Legendre noted the presentation made reference to receiving input from politicians. He indicated a CPTED audit was conducted in his ward and not only was he not notified but he did not find out about it until afterwards. He asked that in future, staff notify and involve local councillors whenever audits are being conducted in their wards. He expressed his support for the recommendations and suggested that the Women’s Action Centre Against Violence (WACAV) be invited to participate on the Advisory Committee.

Sergeant VanRyswyk indicated WACAV have been invited to all the audits conducted with OC Transpo and their comments have been included in those reports.

Moved by G. Baskerville

CARRIED

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

The Board then voted on the amended recommendation:

CARRIED as amended

5. Lease Renewal - 362 Rideau Street, Ottawa ***

- Planning & Development Approvals Commissioner’s report dated 18 Sep 00

CARRIED

6. EQUIPMENT PURCHASE - SPIKE BELTS

- A/Director General’s report dated 17 Oct 00

Vice Chair Baskerville noted the report provides considerable information on the "stop stick" in terms of cost, ease of use and ease of carrying. However, the report provides no information with regard to operational effectiveness. He believed it is important to know which device performs best for its intended purpose and he wondered if comparison testing has been conducted by an independent testing agency.

Sergeant R. Keindel explained there are primarily three products on the market and they are all identical in terms of operational effectiveness. They all have tube-like spikes which puncture tires and cause a slow decrease of air so there are no blow-outs, no loss of control and no other damage to the subject vehicles.

CARRIED

7. AWARD OF TENDER FOR AN EXPLOSIVE DISPOSAL UNIT

- A/Director General’s report dated 17 Oct 00

In response to questions from Vice Chair Baskerville, Staff Sergeant M. Ryan, Head of the Tactical Section, explained the Canadian military no longer responds to civilian requests for explosive disposal, therefore comparisons could not be made with that organization. The OCRPS canvassed several other police agencies across Canada to evaluate the bid submitted by the recommended supplier. Staff are recommending the purchase of a vehicle very similar to the one currently being used by the RCMP. With respect to space requirements, Staff Sergeant Ryan explained the vehicle is used as an equipment truck for the tactical unit. All tactical equipment is stored on the vehicle so that it is mobile and does not need to be loaded every time the unit responds to a call. He stressed that the vehicle is used for all tactical calls, not just bomb calls.

CARRIED

8. QUARTERLY COMPLAINTS REPORT - PART V - POLICE SERVICES ACT (Period ending SepteMber 30, 2000)

- Chief’s report dated 13 Oct 00

Member Buckingham recalled that in the past, a brief synopsis was provided with regard to any policy or service complaints. She noted no summaries were included in this report and wondered whether the practice has been discontinued. Mr. V. Westwick, Professional Standards Section, confirmed that is the practice and explained the omission was an administrative oversight. He offered to distribute copies of the item to Board members or alternatively, to append it to the next report.

In response to a question from Vice Chair Baskerville, Mr. Westwick indicated the section is struggling with a backlog of cases, though staff have made significant in-roads. He noted there is a six month deadline for responding to complainants, therefore, the Service can not delay beyond that time limit. He surmised there are several reasons for the backlog but suggested it is primarily due to workload. He re-iterated staff are working at reducing the backlog and he believed improvements would be apparent in the next quarter.

Vice Chair Baskerville noted increases in the number of internal police complaints and in the number of firearm discharges. He wondered whether the two issues were linked and whether the increase in firearm discharges was indicative of training and/or supervisory issues.

With respect to the increase in the number of firearm discharges, Mr. Westwick stated Chief Bevan has asked staff to review the cases, determine whether the increase is reflective of training and/or procedural issues, and report the findings to him. However, a summary look at the cases would suggest there is no pattern to the incidents.

Chief Bevan explained training put in place and a heightened awareness of the problem have reduced incidents of unintentional discharges. However, what the Service is currently experiencing appears to indicate a different pattern and the Executive is seeking to identify and address the issue.

Mr. Westwick felt there is no clear explanation for the increase in internal complaints. He suggested the fact that there has been an increase in discharges may be one factor. However, he believed the increase was reflective of an ebb and flow and the way issues surface. He assured Board members that staff analyze the figures at the end of the year to identify any trends.

RECEIVED

9. DRAFT BUSINESS PLAN 2001-2003

- Chief’s report dated 17 Oct 00

The Board voted on the following substituted recommendations which were distributed to members prior to the meeting.

CARRIED

10. BOARD OFFICE SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN NEW CITY

- G. Baskerville, Vice Chair’s report dated 17 Oct 00

CARRIED

11. BICYCLE SAFETY CAMPAIGN - BICYCLE SCHOOL

- Chief’s report dated 11 Oct 00

RECEIVED

12. COMMENDATION LETTERS (SINCE LAST BOARD MEETING)

- Chief’s report dated 12 Oct 00

RECEIVED

13. POLICY ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS, LOANS & SPONSORSHIPS

Member Legendre recalled that earlier in the year, he asked that a policy be developed on the acceptance of donations, loans and sponsorships by the Police Service. He noted the matter was withdrawn from the September and October meeting agendas. He felt the report was ready for the Board’s consideration and asked the Board to waive the rules of procedure so it might consider the item tonight.

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

Member Legendre noted item 1 of the suggested policy says the Chief shall ensure that "the donation, loan or sponsorship supports the objectives and priorities of the Police Services Board and will provide a direct benefit to the community in the form of improved police service". To that line, he suggested adding the words "and that donations should never be allowed to skew priorities of the Service". He felt this is different from item 2 which says that "The acceptance of any donation, loan or sponsorship must not compromise or bring into question police impartiality and objectivity". He indicated he was happy with the rest of the policy and urged other Board members to support it, though he expressed his willingness to hear arguments with respect to the amount indicated in item 4 of the policy.

He stated that when he considered the sample policies received from other boards in the province, he felt this one would stand up as a model and he hoped others would reflect on it and adopt similar policies.

Vice Chair Baskerville believed the reason the report was not included in the agenda package was that there was information pending with respect to the typical value of donations and gifts and the quantities currently received. He believed that information would be a driving factor in determining the limit of authority quoted in item 4 of the proposed policy. He felt $5,000 is too low and would cause the Board to be inundated with requests for approval. He felt the value should be in line with the Chief’s current delegated authority. This would give the Chief and staff enough flexibility to handle some of the donations and gifts. He wondered whether staff now have a grasp on the quantity and typical value of gifts and donations received.

Chief Bevan explained that although staff are working on gathering that information, because of the budget preparation process they have been unable to prepare a comprehensive list. He stressed staff want to be very thorough in gathering the information because such donations exist in various parts of the organization and have far-reaching implications. He provided a few examples of the items that would be included on a comprehensive list of donations, gifts and sponsorships, such as vehicles and computers, as well as subsidies to specific programs such as the Rideau Street Foot Patrol, which is subsidized by the area BIA.

Vice Chair Baskerville indicated he was not surprised by Chief Bevan’s answers. He explained that because the Board Policy Committee did not agree on some of the details such as the level of authority and some of the provisions, members were looking for additional information which, to date, staff have been unable to provide. He felt that if the Board is going to proceed in dealing with the item, a level of $20,000 would be more in order. He indicated he would move that amendment. He also referred to input received from a member of the public, Mr. Frederick Black. Mr. Black’s submission refers to documenting donations and gifts and suggests that acceptance be in writing and agreed to by all parties. Vice Chair Baskerville felt these items are essential to the policy as they speak to the proper documentation of donations, gifts and sponsorships. He felt the policy should firmly state the requirement for a written record of every transaction of this nature. He believed a lot of changes need to be made to the policy, therefore, although he agreed with the policy in principle, he submitted that it be deferred for adjustments before final approval.

With regard to documentation, member Buckingham noted the policy states that all donations, loans and sponsorships received by the Police Service will be reported to the Board twice yearly. She suggested this will require the Service to develop some sort of administrative infrastructure. Therefore, she did not see the need to state it specifically in the policy. She noted the style of the policy manual is to state things that must be done without being extremely prescriptive. She suggested that should members find, at a later date, that staff have not put in place an appropriate infrastructure to document such transactions, nothing would preclude the Board from adding to its policy.

In terms of the dollar value, member Buckingham did not agree with the suggestion of making the level of authority $20,000 because she questioned whether the Service should be receiving such gifts as vehicles. Furthermore, she argued that the Board can always adjust the level quoted in its policy.

Member Buckingham spoke to member Legendre’s suggestion to add the words "and that donations should never be allowed to skew priorities of the Service" to item 1 of the policy. She felt those elements have been captured in other areas of the policy. She noted the legislation clearly states that priorities are to be established by the Board, in consultation with the Chief, therefore she was not convinced of the need for the addition.

In response to a question from member McCombie with respect to whether or not item 2 of the policy sufficiently covers his intent, member Legendre explained that item 2 speaks to not affecting police impartiality and objectivity whereas his recommended amendment makes it very clear that donations should never be allowed to skew priorities of the Service. He felt the two, although close, are not the same.

Chief Bevan stated item 2b, which speaks to normal or routinely budgeted articles, has far-reaching implications within the organization. He recalled that when Dominic Darcy retired, the community came together to provide him with a van so that he could continue his activities if the Service would provide maintenance and service for the vehicle. He felt that type of activity would be prohibited in the future based on this policy.

On procedure, Vice Chair Baskerville suggested the Board should vote on a motion to defer the policy because so many questions remain unanswered.

Chair Kreling agreed that a motion to defer must be addressed before any other. However, he wanted to give everyone an opportunity to ask questions before voting.

Member Buckingham maintained this policy provides the Service with guidance in terms of requirements and a framework in which the Chief must operate. It does not preclude staff from bringing forward requests for approval for specific donations, loans or sponsorships.

Chief Bevan indicated he would be more comfortable with the policy if it contained a clause stating that staff can bring forward requests for approval. Member Buckingham argued that applies to the entire section of the Policy Manual on Chief’s Requirements, the intent of which is to set out a framework for the Chief’s delegated authority. As always, if the Chief wants to go beyond his delegated authority, he can request approval from the Board.

Regional Chair Chiarelli felt the policy is unduly restrictive. He believed item 2a of the policy is all that is required as he felt the rest of the policy goes too far and is too prescriptive. He maintained there has to be some discretion in terms of delegation. He did not agree with setting an amount because the principle is set out and is fairly specific. The Service is not to accept any donations or sponsorships for purposes of assisting with specific criminal investigations. Furthermore, he felt setting an amount of $5,000 was patronizing. He re-iterated, the general principle set out in item 2a is all that is needed to capture any abuse and to allow the Board to call management to task should it occur.

As a result of Vice Chair Baskerville’s comments with respect to the submission from a member of the public, member Legendre indicated he would also be moving an additional item to the policy to state that "all donations, loans or sponsorships be properly documented including at least the source of the gift, its nature and its size or significance."

Chair Kreling expressed concern that if item 2b of the policy was given a broad interpretation, community police centres might no longer be able to accept donations from citizens and corporate community representatives. He indicated he would, at the very least, want to amend 2b by adding the words "unless approved by the board" so that the Service can maintain some of the relationships is currently has in the community. He maintained the Police Service and Board keep talking about building partnerships in the community and he suggested that if a car dealership wishes to provide a vehicle for the benefit and use of a community police office, he would be apt to believe that they are just acting as good corporate citizens who want to support policing in their community.

Regional Chair Chiarelli maintained that every time a paragraph is added to the policy, it opens it up to interpretation. He felt the policy should simply state that gifts, donations or sponsorships for the purpose of assisting with specific criminal investigations are not to be accepted. He wondered if this policy meant that the Police Service would not be able to accept a donation or sponsorship that would be used as a reward to capture a suspect in a specific criminal investigation.

Member Legendre stated Regional Chair Chiarelli raised an interesting point with regard to rewards. He did not believe the offer of rewards is something the Service routinely engages in. Therefore he felt it would not be too onerous a task for staff to bring reports to the Board to get approvals. Similarly for 2b, he felt there is flexibility because the Chief can bring forward a report for Board approval any time he feels restrained by a particular gift.

Member Legendre asked other members not to defer the item. He maintained the Board and staff have worked on this policy for quite some time and there is relatively little information missing. The policy can be modified at a later date should Board members feel it is necessary to do so. In terms of putting the item off to the next meeting, he indicated he would likely not be in attendance and he has been pressing for this policy for some time. He therefore asked that members vote to deal with it tonight.

Vice Chair Baskerville indicated he would withdraw his motion to defer if members agree to go through the policy paragraph by paragraph and make amendments. He felt that would produce a policy that is acceptable to the majority of members.

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

Regional Chair Chiarelli suggested amending item 2 so that it ends at "objectivity" thereby deleting items 2a and 2b. He felt item 2b is very difficult to interpret. He suggested the Service probably has a budget line on anything that could be offered as a donation or gift, therefore the policy would almost eliminate any possible donation. He re-iterated his belief that the policy is overly restrictive. He believed directions to management should be principles, not specific.

Chief Bevan feared many of the people the Service deals with in community organizations and the private sector will view the policy as being prescriptive and see their potential donation as being beyond its scope. He re-iterated his belief that the policy should contain a clause specifically stating that the Police Service has the ability to bring forward requests for Board approval.

Member Legendre made a clear distinction between items 2a and 2b. He maintained that 2a is absolutely essential to the policy. It goes precisely to the heart of the matter that caused him to ask whether the Service had such a policy and whether the Police Services Act controlled this issue. He stressed the need for the Board to specifically address this in its policy. He argued that criminal investigations must be funded with public funds because to do otherwise would lead to two-tier justice. He urged other Board members to keep 2a and add a clause to make an exception for rewards.

Member Buckingham indicated she would support Regional Chair Chiarelli’s suggested amendments. She agreed that the policy should be relatively short, put forward basic principles and leave the Police Service with room to operate. She suggested that leaving items 2a and 2b in the policy could lead to the Board receiving monthly reports for approval and she maintained that is not the intent.

Member McCombie indicate he would support keeping item 2a with the deletion of the word "specific", and that he would support eliminating item 2b.

Although Chair Kreling understood the concerns raised by Regional Chair Chiarelli, he also agreed that one of the central reasons for the policy was to address third party financial contributions for specific police investigations. The Board wanted to send a message to the community and set a policy clarifying its position on the matter. He supported keeping item 2a with an exception for rewards. He indicated he did not consider rewards as falling under the purview of this policy because such funds do not go to, nor do they benefit, the Police Service. He indicated he would not support 2b for the same reasons mentioned by other members.

Moved by B. Chiarelli

CARRIED

Moved by J. McCombie

CARRIED

Moved by B. Chiarelli

CARRIED

(J. Legendre dissented)

There were no motions to amend item 3.

Moved by G. Baskerville

CARRIED

There were no motions to amend item 5.

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

(E. Buckingham dissented)

The Board then voted on the policy as amended by the foregoing motions:

CARRIED as amended

Moved by J. McCombie

CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.