Chair: Councillor H. Kreling

Vice Chair: Mr. G. Baskerville

Members: Ms. E. Buckingham, Regional Chair B. Chiarelli, Councillor J. Legendre

Mr. D. Adam, Mr. J. McCombie

CARRIED

1. PUBLIC DELEGATIONS

Mr. David Coffey read a letter, addressed to Inspector S. O’Sullivan of the OCRPS, in which he made proposals to address panhandling. In response to a question from Chair Kreling, Mr. Coffey confirmed that the letter has been sent to Inspector O’Sullivan.

RECEIVED

2. 1999 ACTIVITY REPORT

Member Legendre found much of the information contained in the report to be very good, particularly the data. He noted the data presented relates to counts of reported incidents. He believed people generally want to know about results such as the number of cases solved and charges laid. He suggested that future reports of this nature be more focussed on results and that its title be amended to reflect that.

Vice Chair Baskerville indicated that whenever he receives a report that includes an organizational chart, he likes to compare it to the previous chart. He posed the following questions with respect to the current chart:

With respect to the Break and Enter Section, Chief Bevan explained that in 1999 it was decided that because of the need to communicate, coordinate and cooperate across the Service, that Section was better placed under Criminal Investigative Services. In reference to the removal of the Proceeds of Crime Section from the organization chart, the Chief indicated that group is physically located with the RCMP because it is a joint forces operation. He confirmed the unit is functional and indicated he would be bringing forward an update report on their activities in the near future. He explained the rationale for linking Policy Development with Legal Services and Corporate Planning is to reflect the risk management approach the Service is taking with regard to policy development.

RECEIVED

CARRIED as amended

4. UPDATE ON BIKE SCHOOL

- Chief’s report dated 21 Jun 00

Brett Delmage, President, Citizens for Safe Cycling, indicated he had the opportunity to participate in the recent bike school offered in conjunction with the police and Citizens for Safe Cycling. He indicated more than three hundred cycling accidents are reported by the police annually in Ottawa-Carleton and most are caused by cyclist or motorist error. Citizens for Safe Cycling is very concerned with cyclist behaviour and the enforcement and education campaigns designed to effectively deal with it, and with motorist behaviour towards cyclists. On behalf of CfSC, Mr. Delmage requested that the police give more consideration to enforcement against aggressive motorists.

He believed many cyclists operate their bicycles in ignorance. For example, he noted many cyclists ride their bicycles on sidewalks or against traffic thinking it is safe, even though these conditions are much more dangerous than travelling with the traffic on the road. He explained the organization’s goal is to focus on such behaviours through a joint enforcement / education campaign to reduce cycling accidents. He noted Ottawa-Carleton has an official plan policy to double the number of cycling trips in the next twenty years and CfSC does not want to see the number of accidents double as well.

Ms. S. Welke indicated that based on the breakdown of the tickets issued and data provided from the Traffic Section, the CfSC was pleased the police realize the relative importance of moving and safety equipment violations. Unfortunately, late and inadequate communication made it difficult to coordinate the bike school in terms of finding suitable locations and instructors. She noted that during the bike blitz, 44 tickets were issued, 375 warnings were given, and 15 people attended the bike school. That was a disappointing level of participation for the CfSC and the instructors, since there is significantly more educational value in an hour and half of bike school compared to a short warning. Ms. Welke estimated that running the bike school cost approximately $700 and organizers were disappointed by the lack of police participation. She believed that on-going media coverage would have promoted greater public awareness of safe cycling, which was the goal of the school. The CfSC have recommendations for the next blitz: timely and effective communication of what the Police Service requires from organizers; active promotion of the bike school by the police; participation by police officers in some of the classes given at police headquarters; greater use of police headquarters as a site for such classes; and the consideration of a cost sharing arrangement.

Mr. Delmage believed bike school classes are very well received and explained the core of the program is cycling traffic theory and laws. It is a very positive educational opportunity. It was a positive program when it was first introduced in 1988 and the CfSC were pleased to bring it back. He recommended running another blitz before the end of the summer. He felt two blitzes per year would be ideal because on-going enforcement between blitzes is rather thin due to other operational requirements. He indicated the CfSC would like to take what has been learned from this recent blitz and run an even better campaign, with media involvement. He encouraged members of the Police Services Board to get involved and he thanked member Legendre for attending the media launch of the last campaign.

Vice Chair Baskerville thanked the delegation for their presentation and the work their organization has done. He indicated his wife is an avid cyclist and she observes a lot of ill-trained cyclists. He believed what the CfSC is doing is very important. He noted the other side of the coin is getting motorists to recognize cyclists’ rights on the roads and wondered how that could best be accomplished.

Mr. Delmage acknowledged that getting motorists to recognize cyclists’ rights is a big problem. To-date, the CfSC has focused on educating cyclists, that’s why they would like to see a focus on enforcement. There is a perception at times that even the police don’t understand the issues when motorists and cyclists interact and that is discouraging.

Ms. Welke indicated the CfSC has been working with the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) on plans for a campaign aimed at motorists. The project will be launched once the organization can get the resources.

Member Legendre thanked the delegation and their organization for their efforts to improve the safety of cycling in Ottawa-Carleton. He noted the mention of a lack of police presence during the bike school and wondered if there was any police participation. Mr. Delmage indicated there were no officers present.

Member Legendre indicated he would support another blitz and he hoped resources would be provided so that an officer would be present and actively involved in the bike school.

Chief Bevan thanked the delegation for its recognition and efforts on the importance of road safety. He believed it is a learning process and the Service will get better as time goes on. He expressed a willingness to try and have another cooperative venture later in the year and noted the mention of a cost sharing arrangement.

Ms. Welke explained that the CfSC provide the instructors and the printing of bike school tickets to be handed out, and she hoped an arrangement can be reached to share those costs in the future.

Chief Bevan believed an arrangement could be made and suggested taking contributions from the bike school participants to offset costs. He was reluctant to commit resources to participate in the bike school, stating he would prefer to have officers on the streets enforcing the laws. He acknowledge the CfSC’s concerns, but indicated he has concerns of his own and he expressed the need to find a balance. Studies across Canada indicate that traffic collisions lead to the most deaths of those under the age of 24 and impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada. Though he did not want to minimize the concerns of the CfSC, he maintained it is a matter of setting priorities for the Police Service.

Member Legendre noted that officers participate as teachers in the John School and he urged the Police Service to put the bike school on the same level as the John School in terms of participation. Chief Bevan noted that officers participating in the John School do so as volunteers.

Member Buckingham was pleased to hear the Chief’s comments with respect to traffic enforcement and noted the Adequacy Standards require the Service to have a traffic management plan. She wondered if Chief Bevan intended to table such a plan with the Board as she thought it would be interesting.

Chief Bevan stated the OCRPS will meets its obligations under the Adequacy Standards and will table a report with the Board. He indicated there is going to be a good deal of effort in the next six weeks on refocusing and developing a strategy to deal with difficult drivers.

Member Buckingham recalled that during a trip to Alberta in the spring, driver behaviour seemed better in Alberta than it is in Ottawa. She speculated the difference stems from a combination of education and enforcement. She felt enforcement with respect to cyclists is an element in the range of traffic enforcement, as is speeding. She acknowledged that the Service has to target priorities and this one has to fit in somewhere. She concurred with member Legendre’s comments with regard to the similarity between the bike school and the John School. She noted with the John School, the police charge people to take it, and she suggested this may be a way to generate revenue to fund the bike school. Member Buckingham was concerned that one-week blitzes are not sufficient to change people’s habits in the long-term.

Chief Bevan indicated there is a significant difference between the various diversion programs. With respect to the bike safety program, the police have a window of opportunity of 72 hours because of the way Provincial Offences Notices have to be filed with the Court. That window of opportunity is very narrow and in order to have on-going enforcement and diversion would require having a bike safety school established and waiting. That’s why it has to be focused into specific weeks and scheduled so that the bike safety school is available. The police do the enforcement during blitzes and refer people to the program. The police can’t, during the normal course of business, issue tickets to cyclists and then expect CfSC to react and establish a school and answer that need on a moment’s notice. Chief Bevan added there is also ongoing work on traffic management and enforcement with the Medical Officer of Health. The Service has representatives who sit on a committee and there is a longer term structure in place that is looking after some of these issues.

Chair Kreling thanked the delegation for their efforts and participation. He read a motion from member Legendre directing that an additional bike blitz and bike school program occur this season and that one or more officers participate in the school function if possible.

Chair Kreling suggested the motion should go forward as a noted request to indicate that board members were encouraged with the results of the bike blitz and bike school held and, by way of request, that the Chief consider holding another one before the end of this cycling season.

RECEIVED

5. CONTRIBUTIONS POLICY AND PRIVATE SPONSORSHIPS

- Chief’s report dated 21 Jun 00

Chief Bevan began by acknowledging that the report speaks to a difficult issue for police services. Although he noted a good deal of benefit can result from some partnerships, he pointed out there is also a perception that such situations can lead to harm, and that it is necessary to achieve a balance. The Chief said the Service welcomed the opportunity to present this report to the Board in order to gain some direction, which the Service would use to prepare a policy to better reflect the Board’s wishes.

Member Legendre felt the staff report was well prepared. Referencing page eight of the agenda, he said he appreciated the input from the Board’s legal advisors that suggested there appeared to be a vacuum in terms of guidelines. However, he noted those that did exist seemed to argue on the side of the long history of police independence in Ontario. He further added that the various legislation appears to indicate that private monies should not be accepted for criminal investigation activities. Member Legendre felt the suggested draft contributions policy (Appendix I to the staff report) was too detailed for the Board to adopt in terms of a policy document. However, he felt the Police Service might at some point want to adopt something similar, once the Board has given some guidelines.

Member Legendre said he did not want to adopt as a Board position that groups of citizens wishing to make donations for a broad public good would not be allowed to do so. He cited the example of community police centres, which could benefit from additional resources such as electronic equipment, photocopy machines, or a vehicle to assist in transportation. However, he felt that such donations must be clearly labeled and made very public and transparent in order to mitigate any "under the table" insinuations, and to underline that the provision of such a donation would buy no special consideration should the donor run afoul of the law. Member Legendre felt the Service might also participate in public partnerships involving broad advocacy issues of safety or security. He did not believe such partnerships would be perceived as nefarious or call the Service’s credibility into question. He wished to draw a line between the aforementioned possibilities, which could happen under very clear guidelines, and things that ought never happen under any circumstances, such as the provision of funding for specific criminal investigations. He felt criminal investigations were a clear part of the police mandate, funded by the broad public purse. This way there is no possibility of police independence being called into question, and no possible loss of credibility. Member Legendre said he would like a one or two page document that would serve as a Board policy guideline or direction, which the Service could then use to see if its draft was in conformity.

Chair Kreling took the opportunity to introduce Ms. Goldie Shea who has recently been hired as the Board’s Policy Analyst, and who has been working with Member Buckingham, Vice Chair Baskerville and the Board’s Executive Director on aspects of the Provincial Adequacy Standards Regulation. He noted Ms. Shea would be the person tasked with drafting the Board’s guidelines on this issue.

Member Buckingham said she also has difficulty with the question of how far the Service should go with respect to loans and donations, particularly when accepting them directly from a business for the purpose of a specific investigation. She said she found it easier to accept when it is from a third party who does not have a vested interest, such as in the case of a service club donating a vehicle outright, rather than a car dealership or manufacturer loaning or donating a piece of equipment to garner a potential future sale.

Member Buckingham also had difficulty with the financial levels suggested in the draft contributions policy. She felt the Board only needs to delegate to the Chief in terms of spending authority, and that further allocations should be the Chief’s prerogative. She suggested that because of the higher sensitivity associated with loans and donations, the Board should be using a lower dollar amount of perhaps between $500.00 and $1,000.00. She suggested such matters could be itemized in an annual Board report for the sake of transparency.

She also expressed concern that increasingly over time the police have given away parts of their business to private industry, resulting in a form of two-tiered policing. She cited the example of complex fraud cases where, unless a business comes to the police with a case already wrapped up by forensic accountants, the police do not have the resources to properly investigate them.

Member Buckingham also expressed growing concern about the recent proliferation of private parking lot security firms whose vehicles mimic the appearance of legitimate police vehicles. She said she has problems believing these vehicles would have the authority to pull over other vehicles, and wondered at what point the Service would want to scale back the private firms’ authority.

Regarding the issue of partnerships, Member Buckingham believed it was necessary to be able to clearly demonstrate how, from the Service’s perspective, the other organization was helping the Service achieve its intended goals more cost effectively, and she hoped this would form part of the criteria in deciding when to authorize a sponsorship.

Chief Bevan found the Board Members’ comments helpful. However, he suggested that in certain cases police budgets alone might be insufficient to carry out the work required. He used as an example a past fraud investigation on which he had worked, where accounting fees had been over $200,000.00. He noted another emerging issue is private laboratories soliciting police services with fee structure outlines for performing scientific tests that would take public labs months to accomplish. The Chief said he was also aware that private labs are already lobbying victims’ groups in an effort to persuade them to have the police use private labs to get work done faster. He said he could soon foresee situations where a victim or a victim’s family would be willing to pay to get the scientific tests done faster, where by policy and by practice, the Service uses the RCMP lab or Centre for Forensic Sciences. Chief Bevan noted that when trying to balance different priorities, there has to be a recognition that some work will not get done because the Service does not have the necessary fiscal resources.

Member Buckingham felt the issue of private labs involved public policy issues which need broader discussion. She suggested the Board and Service should discuss such matters with their respective colleagues in the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards (OAPSB), the Canadian Association of Police Boards (CAPB), the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP), along with the government bodies each organization deals with.

Vice Chair Baskerville drew the Board’s attention to the second last paragraph on page nine of the agenda, which stated, "If a police service is committed to Community activities then they should be prepared to fund them and not seek private funding for that purpose. The solicitation and acceptance of private funding is argued to be fundamentally inconsistent with an independent police service." The Vice Chair said he had no problem with this statement, but suggested the political reality was often different. He said a municipality or council might not be committed or might not be able to provide the funds that a service and a board felt they needed. He noted the discussion has addressed the development of a policy approach and a philosophical direction, but if there is not a big enough pool of funds in the public purse, the greater discussion must revolve around what the Board and Service can do to get the necessary funds in an ethical and proper manner. Although the Vice Chair did not disagree with what was stated in the staff report, he felt it reflected an ideal situation. The Board and Service have to be prepared to compromise or to set an overall policy that will allow the Service to set up a framework to direct its activities.

Chief Bevan said parameters could be established and a policy put in place, but he felt the policy should recognize there will be arguable exceptions from time to time. He suggested that if in doubt, the Service should come back to the Board for purposes of discussion and transparency. However, the Chief noted this might sometimes cause difficulties for the Board, as it is not always possible to have discussions on certain issues in public.

Chair Kreling did not feel it would be possible to draft a policy or direction that would have complete applicability, because the nature of police services are such that future variables are never known. He explained that when this issue was first raised, he had asked the Chief and Director General for help because he could not remember previously receiving such an inquiry. Chair Kreling noted that during his tenure with the Board, it has not been approached by any organization or business offering assistance, nor has it been asked to accept funds for the specific purpose of some type of investigation. Thus, the Board has not had to make any such decisions recently. In the development of a policy, the Chair felt it would sometimes be necessary to make a careful case-by-case examination.

The Chair said he liked a philosophy that supported the notion and the commitment that the Board would not stand for anything other than a one-tier public police system for Ottawa-Carleton. He noted the Board and Service are already in the business of encouraging partnerships, as part of community based policing. He felt the Board’s focus on public single-tiered policing should not override opportunities for partnerships where there is legitimate and broad based support, and which might sometimes include elements of loans or donations. He felt the policy should, as the Chief suggested, contain a catchall, whereby matters of a "gray area" would come to the Board for a specific decision.

Member Legendre then commented on Appendices 2 and 3 to the staff report. Referring to Appendix 3, which outlined the policy of the Halton Regional Police Services Board, Member Legendre noted that under a heading entitled Donations to the Police Service for Specific Operational Investigations or Special Operational Projects, the stipulation was made that, "Special investigations or special operational projects, where external assistance is provided either through goods or services or monetary, require the approval of the Chief of Police or designate prior to the acceptance of the assistance." Member Legendre said he found this too permissive, and said he did not want the Board to follow this example. However, he found the case of the Regional Municipality of Peel (Appendix 2) even more offensive, as under the heading of Desired Outcome, it was noted "That the use of external funding assistance serve as an effective enhancement and/or supplement to the ability of the police service to undertake and complete investigations..." He said he could see this happening under very special circumstances, but felt that to accept this as a blanket statement was unacceptable. He then introduced the following Motion:

Moved by J. Legendre

Vice Chair Baskerville said he did not disagree with the intent of the Motion. However, he asked for a review by legal staff to determine whether this would tie staff’s hands too much in terms of developing an umbrella policy.

Councillor Legendre explained the examples he had given were intended to be illustrative and not all-encompassing.

Eric Johnston, Acting Regional Solicitor, offered the opinion that the Motion was giving perhaps more specific direction than the Board wanted at this point.

Councillor Legendre acknowledged there could be investigations in a particular community that could be so costly and onerous that the community might not be able to bear the cost. He said that in these cases, the preferred safety valve would be to go to another, higher level of government for assistance, and not to the private sector. He said the private sector would not be his first choice because of the credibility issue this would entail for the Service.

Chair Kreling asked Chief Bevan to provide examples of what types of individuals or organizations were presently helping the Service through contributions and donations with respect to awareness, safety and security, or promotional programs.

The Chief noted the Service has an extensive list of partnerships with community and business groups and service clubs, and with dealerships who provide the Service with vehicles on an interim basis. He noted there are community groups who contribute to the operation of vehicles used in association with community policing centres. The Chief said that as a review would be undertaken anyway, the Service could provide the Board with a specific list. Citing one particular partnership example, Chief Bevan explained the Service received a call from a member of the high tech industry who had lost computer data. After internal efforts at data retrieval failed, the Service received a call for help because of the industry’s awareness of the Service’s capabilities due to its high tech partnerships. He noted that within a matter of hours, the data had been retrieved. To show its gratitude, the company within a couple of days provided the Service with some high end technical equipment that it could not otherwise have afforded in its regular budget. The Chief explained this sort of situation arises from time to time, and the Service needs some guidelines.

Chair Kreling stated the Board supported this type of partnership. As a philosophy, he said this type of situation would have applicability Service-wide.

Member Legendre said he was comfortable with the Chief’s example. However, the situation he was warning against was a target-specific scenario of the type where the same high tech company might have approached the Service outlining a specific problem, asking for assistance, and donating or loaning specific equipment, then asking for its return following resolution of the problem.

Member Buckingham then submitted a Motion which she believed better reflected the Acting Regional Solicitor’s suggestions. Councillor Legendre said he had no problem with the wording of either his or Member Buckingham’s Motion.

As Member Buckingham’s Motion constituted a Motion by Substitution, the Chair ruled the Board was bound to consider Member Buckingham’s Motion prior to that of Member Legendre’s.

Moved by E. Buckingham

CARRIED

6. WEB SITE UPDATE

- Chief’s report dated 19 Jun 00

Councillor Legendre indicated he was generally very impressed with the site. However, he asked that the Police Services Board page be moved to its own bullet on the main page. He argued the current format misrepresents the Board as being "part of" the organization rather than an oversight body. He also noted that the media release titles on the French site are in English and he asked that this be rectified. He recalled that the complaint section is very detailed and people can download forms. He assumed the reason people cannot file their complaints directly through the website relates to the need for signatures on the form. He wondered if staff might investigate ways to circumvent that problem.

Chief Bevan indicated there is a change in law coming that addresses the issue of electronic signatures and he hoped it would address that difficulty. He appreciated member Legendre’s comments and indicated staff would look into making the requested changes. He believed the website will see constant improvements as the Service evolves and changes arise. In closing, he drew Board members’ attention to the fact that board policies are now available in both official languages through the website, with the exception of the Policy Manual which has not yet been translated, and there is a link to Police Services Board minutes.

Chair Kreling felt the website’s launch went very well and noted the number of hits indicates it is being used more than the old site.

RECEIVED

7. AIR CONDITIONING REPLACEMENT - 4561 BANK STREET, TENDER NO. 00900-91036-T02

- Director, Property Services Division’s report dated 25 May 00

Member Buckingham wondered how a project taking place in 2000 can be funded by the 1998 facility workplan.

Ms. D. Frazer, Director, Financial Services and Materiel Management, explained that when the Police Service budget was originally developed in 1995, all work relating to the maintenance of buildings was allocated to an envelope and called the Facility Workplan. Any work required to keep those buildings in a good state of repair was budgeted in the facility workplan each year and included in the Capital portion of the budget. There’s a facility workplan for each year since 1995. Because they’re capital projects, there’s always a choice on how to fund them. Staff have been funding them for the last year and a half by transferring funds from the operating budgets. Because they are Capital projects they stay open until you close them. They are meant to fund a specific plan of work and there is a detailed list of the items to be done each year. With this particular project, some funds were budgeted in smaller portions in a number of years. At the beginning, it was thought the solution could be a small one however, the system needs to be replaced. The Service is taking the funds that had been included in the previous years’ capital budgets to fund this project, after which it should be in a position to close some of those projects.

Member Buckingham noted the 96/98 workplan is still showing over a million dollars remaining in that envelope. She questioned at what point a Capital project gets closed out and whether staff could close it out today. She wondered if the Service has borrowed the additional million dollars or whether those funds don’t get budgeted until they’re actually needed.

Ms. Frazer explained that from a funding perspective, funding happens as expenditures occur so if the Service had planned to borrow money to complete work, staff wouldn’t actually borrow the money and get the debenture until the work had been done.

Member Buckingham explained her fundamental problem is that she felt the Board has lost control over this part of the spending. She speculated that this facility workplan could have been approved as part of the budget process in 1995 or 1996 by a previous Board. She argued that makes it difficult for this Board to be accountable and to truly understand what sort of capital funds are being planned for in the course of a year. She assumed the Service would have to borrow over one hundred thousand dollars because the authorized cash is in the form of debentures.

Ms. Frazer introduced Mr. R. Moore, Manager, Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Facilities, RMOC Planning and Development Approvals, who has a list of work to be funded from those projects and who can share information regarding the elements that have yet to be completed.

Mr. Moore indicated there are no funds coming from 1996. In 1997, there was a project for the air handling unit at a cost of $27,000. There were a few more projects for controls in 1998 and for humidification and condensive problems in 1999. He noted that over the years, the building has been suffering and the unit is failing. With regard to outstanding amounts from year to year, he explained staff don’t always get the opportunity to complete the workplan because the process is fairly slow at times.

Member Buckingham noted that at the end of the day, the work will be done. She indicated she would be more comfortable with a process whereby at the end of the year, if a project hasn’t been completed, rather than having it sit on the books, it should be closed and staff come back to the Board for authority in a subsequent year so that the Board can decide how projects will be funded.

Chair Kreling explained the accountability is in the project coming back to the Board in a report of this form. He believed that once a spending authority is established and if the project was supposed to be paid for in cash from general revenues, closing it would mean losing those funds. He indicated that once the authority is closed, the money goes back into the general revenues of the corporation.

Member Buckingham suggested a process whereby unused funds targeted for specific projects get flipped into a capital reserve fund.

Chair Kreling maintained the current system has been used relatively effectively. Projects get reported back to the Board and he did not see a problem with having the authority established and funds put aside for a particular undertaking.

CARRIED

8. CONVERSION OF FOUND/SEIZED PROPERTY TO POLICE USE

- Director, Financial Services & Materiel Management’s report dated 16 Jun 00

RECEIVED

9. STATUS REPORT ON BUSINESS PLANNING PROCESS

- Chief’s report dated 19 Jun 00

RECEIVED

10. UPDATE ON ADEQUACY STANDARDS

- Chief’s report dated 19 Jun 00

Member Buckingham indicated she had addressed her specific questions on this item with Dr. Johnson and was satisfied with the report. She noted the Board has completed a similar checklist and the self-assessment and is in compliance on all items.

Chief Bevan indicated the Service is well on target for being compliant by 21 July and he promised to further update the Board when the process is completed.

Vice Chair Baskerville noted the requirement for the Board to have a protocol with municipal Council on its business plan review. He believed the Board may not be in compliance with that particular requirement because of the municipal restructuring that is underway.

Member Buckingham indicated she discussed that matter with a Ministry advisor at the OAPSB conference in April and he suggested the Board could negotiate with the Region and not wait for the creation of the new city. She suggested the matter be clarified. She believed it behooves the Board to provide as much information as possible to Regional Council to foster as strong a working relationship as possible.

RECEIVED

11. DNA DATABANK IMPLEMENTATION

- Chief report dated 16 Jun 00

Vice Chair Baskerville wondered if staff could explain the objection to having a facility at the courthouse and provide some idea on how the matter can be resolved. He also wondered if there was any possibility that the requirements may be amended to allow samples to be taken at an earlier stage in the process. He noted the current legislation states that samples can only be taken upon conviction and with direction from the presiding judge.

Chief Bevan indicated the issue of having facilities at the courthouse is posing difficulties for many police services across Ontario and Quebec because it is very inconvenient to take prisoners from a central court facility to the police station to have tests done. He stated it is an issue the police hope will be resolved in time. With respect to taking samples earlier in the process, he stated Parliament has determined that people should not be submitted to testing until after they have been convicted and he invited Sergeant Sweet to elaborate on that issue.

Sergeant Sweet explained that a local committee, formed in January, determined that in order to collect samples as soon as possible, it would be preferable to have facilities at the courthouse. The Ministry directed that could proceed conditional upon reaching an understanding with local judges. Subsequently, representatives met with the local Justice and provided him with documents underlining the legislation, and showed him the facility the Service intended to use. He was in favour. Subsequently, the local judiciary raised some concerns about an investigative police tool being used in their courthouse, of which they are the guardians. As result, Chief Justice Lennox, of the Ontario Court of Justice, decreed that police services could not use courthouses and that decision supercedes any local agreements. However, he noted legislation is expected to be passed on Friday that could allow police services to use the courthouse with some stipulations. He explained the Service had identified one room within a secure area in the cell block to collect samples. However, for people who have been convicted but are not being sentenced, it is likely that judges will not want them sampled in a secure area. That will require the Service to find another location, outside of the cellblock but within the courthouse, and duplicate the requirements to have a sterile, secure area with computer access. With respect to the possibility of collecting samples earlier in the process, he indicated there is a review underway and it will be looking at that aspect of the law in an effort to push it a little further to enable the police to collect samples at the charge level.

Vice Chair Baskerville believed problems regarding the use of courthouses and the judiciary’s concerns could be addressed if samples were taken earlier in the process.

Member Buckingham noted the report identifies several issues with respect to implementation. She believed it would be useful for the Board to receive updates to indicate how well the database works once it is functional, and to know how matters are resolved with the local judiciary. She requested that an update report be brought forward in six to nine months so that the Board can be kept apprised of how the databank implementation is moving along.

Sergeant Sweet indicated a local database has been created to monitor and track implementation. He also noted there will be on-going tracking, in consultation with the courthouse and crowns, of the success rate of requests and DNA samples taken.

Member Legendre noted that to upgrade a facility at the courthouse could cost $5,000 whereas a facility could be provided at the police station for $1,000. Therefore, he wondered why the Service would prefer to use courthouse in view of the resistance by the judiciary.

Sergeant Sweet explained that the Service can anticipate a volume of 5 to 7 people per day being requested to provide samples and the cost of transporting those individuals back and forth far outweighs the cost of the facility upgrade. Furthermore, he re-iterated that many of the people being requested to sample will be non-custodial.

RECEIVED

12. TASER LESS THAN LETHAL USE OF FORCE OPTION - SIX-MONTH TRIAL

- Chief’s report dated 12 Jun 00

Member Buckingham indicated she had submitted a revised policy to the Board’s Executive Director in an effort to ensure it conforms with the format of the Board’s policy manual. She argued, the Board has gone to great efforts to create a policy manual which can easily be expanded and updated and she believed the suggested policy would fit nicely in Section 3.11, under Chief’s Requirements, paragraph 8. She also suggested the policy include specific effective and expiry dates. She had some difficulty with the Ministry’s request that the Board endorse the Chief’s policy because she felt that amounts to the Board taking away some of the Chief’s accountability. She was happy to leave the Chief accountable for making sure the Service has a policy that is consistent with the Board’s, and with any standards imposed by the Ministry. She wondered if the Board should approve a motion stating it has received the Chief’s procedures and found them to be consistent with Board policy and with the Ministry’s requirements.

Vice Chair Baskerville indicated that, like member Buckingham, his first thought upon reading the report was that the policy should be included in the Board’s policy manual. However, he stated that after reviewing it again he felt the Board should just approve appendix A as it is because it is only a six-month project. He believed all the project requires is an interim policy whereas the policy manual contains policies of a long-term nature. He suggested that should the Solicitor General approve the Taser, they will be issuing regulations and guidelines under Use of Force and the Board’s current policy would cover that. Therefore, he did not think the Board should go to the trouble of amending the policy manual to include this six-month interim policy.

Member Legendre noted Appendix B indicates the Ministry will be requiring monthly reports and he asked that the Board also receive copies of those reports. He expressed his support for the pilot project but maintained his desire to be kept informed.

Chief Bevan indicated that because of the nature and length of detail that will go into those reports, they would have to be received In Camera if they are to be copied to the Board.

Chair Kreling indicated he would be happy with receiving only the final report. He referenced Vice Chair Baskerville’s and member Buckingham’s comments with respect to the policy and expressed his willingness to approve a free-standing policy given that it is for an interim period.

Moved by Member Buckingham

LOST

YEAS: E. Buckingham, J. Legendre

NAYS: G. Baskerville, H. Kreling

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

The Board then voted on the report as amended:

CARRIED as amended

13. SECONDARY ACTIVITIES REPORT

- Chief’s report dated 19 Jun 00

Vice Chair Baskerville noted the report quotes section 49 of the Police Services Act which refers to an activity’s adverse effect on the performance of duty or the likeliness of it. He wondered what action could be taken if an officer is found to be in contravention of section 49 of the Act. He also wondered if the reference could be interpreted to include an activity that prevents an officer from having sufficient sleep prior to commencing a shift. He argued that an activity that prevents an officer from getting sufficient sleep could adversely affect judgement and the performance of duties and he wondered how the Service would deal with such a situation.

Chief Bevan felt an issue of lack of sleep would be more appropriately addressed through a performance management system. He explained the thrust of the policy is to identify potentially problematic activities before a member becomes involved. Should the Service direct a member to not participate or not continue participating in a particular activity and the member persisted, disciplinary action would be taken.

RECEIVED

14. Ontario Senior Officers Police Association conference: Funding Request

- Executive Director’s report dated 8 Jun 00

Councillor Legendre indicated he had planned to move that the Board fund a lunch at $1,500 until he noted there is $2,900 left in the account and the Board usually receives a request for $1,500 from the Elizabeth Fry society, leaving only $1,400.

Ms. W. Fedec, Executive Director, noted the Board is also expecting a request for $500 from the Police Pipe and Drum band.

Vice Chair Baskerville suggested that if the Board is prepared to reduce its donation to the Elizabeth Fry society, it could support the lunch. He noted the request complies with the Board’s sponsorship policy, is a worthwhile endeavour, and the donation would be in line with what other boards have done for similar events.

Member Buckingham wondered if the OCRPS had also received a request for funding and whether it would be making a contribution. She was in favour of supporting the endeavour but did not want to see both the Board and the Service contributing since, at the end of the day, it all comes out of the same budget.

Though Superintendent Hill was not aware of the financial planning for the conference (Superintendent Cuthbert is handling it and was absent), he believed the Service’s contribution would be in the form of volunteer resources. Chief Bevan confirmed the Service has not been asked to make a financial contribution.

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED as amended

15. Communication Between Large Boards

- Executive Director’s report dated 8 Jun 00

Member Buckingham indicated she found the material from London interesting to read. She believed the difficulty would be in finding someone to write a communication on behalf of the Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board. On the other hand, she felt this sort of vehicle could be very useful in sharing information on the various issues faced by boards.

Vice Chair Baskerville indicated he was in attendance at the large boards meeting when this matter was discussed. He explained that because the boards only meet 3 or 4 times per year, it was suggested that this would be a worthwhile endeavour to ensure a sharing of information and knowledge. He noted it was also felt that copies could be passed on to the OAPSB for distribution to the smaller boards. He urged the Board to support the initiative and participate with an inter-board communications vehicle and make it part of the Executive Director’s or the Policy Analyst’s duties to prepare it, with input from Board members.

Moved by G. Baskerville

CARRIED as amended

16. COMMENDATION LETTERS (SINCE LAST BOARD MEETING)

- Chief’s report dated 16 Jun 00

RECEIVED

17. CHIEF’S VERBAL REPORT

Chief Bevan reported on the following items:

Member Legendre was glad to hear there would be follow-up to the tragic accident involving the young man who fell off a boat. He indicated that based on Canadian law, the responsibility area is very broad and if someone becomes intoxicated, those providing the alcohol are liable. Based on media reports, he believed alcohol was a factor in that accident and he hoped the issues of responsibility would be followed up. He noted one rarely hears of incidents where the police have followed up with suppliers and he believed the consequence is that bars continue to supply alcohol indiscriminately.

With respect to the last point, Chief Bevan indicated the remedies are largely through civil action. However he recalled the police have in the past charged bar owners for serving alcohol to people who then drove off and were involved in accidents.

Member Legendre indicated he would like the Board to consider a motion, at its next meeting, to move the Chief’s Verbal Report and the Inquiries to the beginning of the agenda. He regretted that the media were all gone before the Board received the Chief’s report or dealt with inquiries. He felt these are missed opportunities to send messages out through the media.

RECEIVED

1. Information Sharing with the Region’s Transportation Department

Councillor Legendre noted the Region’s Transportation Department, in conjunction with a professor from the University of Ottawa, have undertaken a study aimed at making our streets more user friendly. They have requested data on a red-light running blitz which was conducted by the OCRPS earlier this year. He wondered if the Service has received a copy of their request and indicated he would like to see that information provided.

Chief Bevan confirmed the Service has received and actioned the request.

2. Analysis of Report on Road/Sidewalk Safety

Member Legendre referenced a report produced by Professor Wellar and paid for by the RMOC, which involved the scanning of newspapers from across the continent for articles pertaining to the safety of roads and sidewalks. He indicated he has requested that a copy of the report be forwarded to the OCRPS, to the attention of Chief Bevan. Member Legendre asked that OCRPS staff review the report for useful information.

The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

____________________________ _____________________________

W. Fedec H. Kreling

Executive Director Chair