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

REGRETS

Regional Chair B. Chiarelli

Chair Kreling acknowledged the presence of Mr. Michael Mitchell and Mr. Bart Caron from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, Policing Services Division, and welcomed them to the meeting. He noted Mr. Mitchell’s impending retirement and thanked him for his assistance over the years. He also took the opportunity to welcome Mr. Caron back to the OCRPS, noting that his secondment to the Ministry will be over in the next month.

1. FINAL REPORT ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN: BUILDING THE FOUNDATION 1997 - 2000

- Chief’s report dated 23 Feb 00

2. TOWING CONTRACT SELECTION PROCESS

- Chief’s report dated 22 Feb 00

Mr. D. Dion, Dan’s Towing, expressed his concern that the proposed contract zones will be more advantageous for towing firms in the core area. He believed firms located in the core area would be eligible for two zones whereas those in rural areas would only be eligible for their own zones. He therefore requested that firms be restricted to bidding in one zone to give rural towers a better chance of competing.

Superintendent Hill explained the criteria the steering committee recommended is that a towing firm can be awarded two zones, one in A and one in B, though the process could result in the selection of five separate firms. He also noted the Request for Proposal (RFP) is written in such a way that it is preferable, but not essential, for a firm to be located within the zone for which it has the successful bid. Therefore, the argument that a rural firm can not be awarded an urban zone is not true.

Mr. R. Gowan, Gowan Towing, felt the proposal before the Board did not match his recollection of the discussions at the steering committee meetings. He recalled asking for a longer contract specifically for the impound facilities. He believed the towing contract should not exceed two years to promote opportunities and competitiveness in the industry. He had asked for a separate impound contract because of the need to apply for permits with regard to issues associated with storing an impounded vehicle. He argued a firm that has invested in a large piece of property, a building, inside storage facilities, security cameras and fencing should have a two year contract in order to have the opportunity to gain on that investment.

Mr. Gowan was concerned that, based on the proposal, points will be awarded to firms who have pound facilities already in place. He argued that though he has been in business for many years and has served the community well, he does not have an impound yard because he has never needed one. He indicated he would acquire such a facility only if he were awarded a police contract. He argued that without a police contract, an impound facility is not needed. Therefore, to award up to 25 points for existing facilities makes the process unfair.

Mr. Gowan believed the differences between light and heavy towing should be addressed in the contract. Towing a car that has been involved in an accident is very simple compared to removing an over-turned tractor trailer that may be carrying dangerous commodities. He stressed the importance and value of having qualified individuals performing such work.

In response to a question from Chair Kreling, Superintendent Hill explained there is still significant disagreement within the industry with regards to impound facilities. The firms with impound facilities are usually loath to accept vehicles towed by other firms because they don’t want to assume the damages and liabilities associated with the vehicle. He indicated the committee was unable to resolve those issues in time for this contract.

Mr. Gowan noted Mr. Dion works for several salvage reclaim firms and they use a very simple system whereby a piece of paper is used to note the condition of a vehicle upon entry to the impound yard. He believed all that is needed is a simple form, issued by the officer at the scene, which would note vehicular damages and be signed off at every transfer point: upon leaving the scene; upon delivery to the impound yard; upon leaving the impound yard; and upon delivery to a body shop. He argued, this sort of thing is done daily when insurance companies pick up vehicles at impound yards and take them to sale yards and when dealerships move vehicles from one yard to another.

Member Legendre wondered how many impound yards there are in Ottawa-Carleton, where they are located and who their potential clients are, other than the Police Service. Mr. Gowan indicated there are currently three impound yards in Ottawa-Carleton who have police contracts, two are located in the East end, within 5 kilometers of each other, and the third is in the West end. Potential clients include insurance companies, transport companies and repossession firms.

Mr. Gowan noted the three companies currently under contract with the police all have impound yards that are more centrally located than Mr. Dion’s and he wondered if distance would be considered when allocating points for impound facilities.

Noting from Mr. Gowan’s comments that Mr. Dion owns an impound yard, member Legendre clarified his earlier question with respect to the number of impound yards in Ottawa-Carleton and Mr. Dion indicated there are at least six such facilities.

In response to a further question from member Legendre with regard to whether or not he would accept vehicles towed to his facility by another company, Mr. Dion indicated he does so on a regular basis.

Member Legendre recalled this issue had been a concern of his at the time of the consultations and he remembered arguing in favor of separating the towing contract from the impound contract. He thought Mr. Gowan and Mr. Dion had made some very pertinent points, particularly with respect to the duration of the contracts. He believed it made good sense for the impound facility contract to be longer than the towing contract. He spoke against allotting extra points for existing facilities, noting the Region regularly accepts proposals from proponents who do not have existing operations in Ottawa-Carleton. He felt the RFP should be structured in a way that promotes competition and allows new companies to enter into the market. He indicated he would be moving that the Board de-couple the impound contract from the towing contract, and should that motion carry, he would also be moving altered lengths for the two contracts.

In response to a question from Chair Kreling, Superintendent Hill re-iterated the biggest issue with member Legendre’s suggestion is liability. Though Mr. Gowan and Mr. Dion feel this is not an issue, he indicated other industry representatives feel otherwise. He maintained the towing firms are not ready to go that extra step. Firms with busy impound lots are very reluctant to enter into such an arrangement or to bid on just an impound facility.

In response to a further question from Chair Kreling, Superintendent Hill indicated nine towing firms were involved in the consultation process.

Vice Chair Baskerville wondered if the RFP would specify that a impound facility must be owned by the bidding firm, or whether it would be acceptable for a towing firm to enter into an agreement with the owner of an impound facility for the purpose of this contract. Superintendent Hill confirmed such a bid would be acceptable.

Vice Chair Baskerville wondered how staff would assess location and distance of pound facilities when allocating points to the bidding firms. Mr. P. Andrews, RMOC Supply Management Branch, acknowledged that is a challenging aspect of this RFP. He did not believe there was any prescribed point structure where a firm would lose points for distance. He indicated the previous contract had three rather large zones. The proposed contract contains five zones and staff are hoping to have impound facilities within the zones. Staff are aware that no impound facility exists in the central zone, therefore, the RFP was worded such that it is preferable to have an impound facility within the zone, or within a reasonable commuting distance to it. He stated this is an interpretive criteria that will become rated once all the facts are known.

Vice Chair Baskerville noted the RFP refers to proximity to public transportation and though he believed this to be a valid criteria in urban areas, he felt it becomes less important in rural zones. Superintendent Hill indicated that criteria would not take precedence for firms bidding on rural zones. In rating impound facilities, staff are more concerned with the type of facility, its security, heating and lighting in the interior evaluation area, and its ability to preserve evidence.

Member McCombie wondered if the RFP would specifically require that impound facilities be located within the Region of Ottawa-Carleton. He did not feel it would serve the public well to have to travel outside the Region to claim their vehicles. Superintendent Hill stated the RFP does not specify such a criteria but indicated it can be changed.

Member McCombie expressed uncertainty with regard to the proposed motion. Though he saw merit in member Legendre’s proposal, he also noted the companies that have held these contracts for a number of years have served the Police Service well and have expended significant funds to expand their fleets and compounds to meet the needs of the Service.

Superintendent Hill indicated some of the changes in the RFP were made specifically to be more inclusive. Staff have tried to open up the contract as much as possible by extending the contract period and expanding the service areas at the request of the smaller towing firms. However, the OCRPS does not want to jeopardize the quality of this service.

Member Buckingham noted the timelines shown in the report and wondered if it was possible, given that the Board was just dealing with the item, for the RFP to be posted the next day. Superintendent Hill indicated it is possible because staff are prepared to move forward as soon as the item is considered by the Board. Mr. Andrews acknowledged the posting on Merx takes overnight but he indicated staff will be faxing invitations to tow firms and making the proposal available for pick up.

Member Buckingham also noted the timelines suggest the recommendations will be coming back to the Board on 17 April and she wondered whether the report would form part of the Board’s regular agenda, which is distributed the Thursday prior to the meeting. Superintendent Hill indicated staff intend to have the report ready in time to form part of the regular agenda.

Member Buckingham strongly suggested staff make every effort to comply with those timelines. She expressed her frustration with receiving last minute items for consideration at Board meetings.

Member Legendre believed the map gives the impression that staff were originally contemplating seven zones rather than five. Superintendent Hill indicated the steering committee discussed many numbers but settled on five, two rural and three urban/suburban areas. This corresponds with the Service’s district system, thereby providing ease of recognition for dispatch and CommCentre staff. He believed that to go outside those lines would increase the potential margin for error in dispatching the correct tow firm to a given location.

Member Legendre believed a North/South division could easily be added to each of the two rural zones. He indicated he was more concerned with the level of convenience to the public than to staff. He believed that creating seven zones would increase the likelihood of a motorist being serviced by a local firm and he did not see how having seven zones instead of five would overly complicate matters for staff. Superintendent Hill explained that if a vehicle is impounded for investigative purposes, identification and scenes of crime officers currently have three sites to attend. He maintained that to suddenly increase the number of sites to seven would impact on the Service’s ability to effectively conduct such investigative work.

Member Legendre felt it would spread the police around the Region rather nicely. Superintendent Hill stated it spreads investigative staff, not patrol officers.

Member Legendre recalled staff’s earlier response with respect to accepting bids from two firms that have entered into an agreement and he wondered how this differed from accepting separate bids for separate contracts. Superintendent Hill explained the former is a contracted arrangement between two businesses that have agreed to accept each other’s liabilities. The latter entails having several towing firms towing vehicles into impound yards that may not be prepared to accept those liabilities.

Member Legendre noted the Board has heard from one impound yard owner who is prepared to accept vehicles towed by other firms and he suspected others would be willing to do the same. Superintendent Hill maintained staff have heard from many industry representatives and though Mr. Dion may be prepared to accept such liabilities, most are not.

Mr. Andrews added if a proponent comes in with a proposal that is a combination of a tow firm and an impound facility, typically, that proponent would have taken the necessary action to become a legal entity and staff would then be dealing with that proponent as opposed to two separate firms.

Member Legendre noted that rationale pertains to simplicity for staff and though he appreciated the desire to not add to one’s workload, he maintained his objective is to promote maximum competitiveness in the marketplace and maximum convenience to the consumer. He failed to see how the severed scenario would not serve the public well. Superintendent Hill suggested the scenario would not serve the public well in the event of a dispute over where vehicular damages occurred and an ensuing lengthy legal battle. Though he acknowledged that such problems occur, member Legendre did not believe they are common.

Member Legendre referred to Mr. Gowan’s comments with regard to firms towing vehicles great distances to their own facilities even though another facility may be closer. He wondered if the contract could dictate that a tower deliver a vehicle to the closest pound facility or to a pound facility of the client’s preference. Superintendent Hill stated if a tow is non-police related, a tower can deliver it wherever the owner wishes but if it is police related, the vehicle must be brought to a secure facility that meets the Police Service’s standards.

Member Legendre stated that, supposing he was involved in an accident in the west end and his car had to be impounded, he would want his vehicle towed somewhere closer to home rather than to a west end impound lot. He wondered, under those circumstances, if a citizen would be given the choice. Superintendent Hill re-iterated the tower has to deliver the vehicle to a secure facility, which the Police Service contracts from them.

Chair Kreling indicated he would not be supporting member Legendre’s motion to amend the report recommendation. He maintained the towing firms have known for some time that this contract would be up for tender and have had an opportunity to consult and provide input on the process. Though there may still be room for improvement, he argued this contract is greatly improved from the last one. The number of zones will be increased from three to five, the number of contracts one firm can bid on will be limited, and towing operators will be given flexibility in terms of either providing their own impound facilities or in conjunction with another firm.

In response to a question from member McCombie, Superintendent Hill confirmed that Mr. Dion and Mr. Gowan participated in the discussions of the working group.

Moved by J. Legendre

LOST

YEAS: J. Legendre

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

3. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF SOFT BODY ARMOUR

- Director, Financial Services & Materiel Management’s report dated 22 Feb 00

Member Buckingham felt making use of the collective buying power of several police services was an excellent initiative and she was pleased that OCRPS staff were taking advantage of it. She noted the report quotes an account number from which funds are to be drawn for this expenditure and she suggested it would be more meaningful for Board members if future reports of this nature contained the name of the account.

D. Frazer, Director, Financial Services and Materiel Management, explained the funds for this expenditure are coming out of the Quarter Master budget and will be drawn from the Safety Supply account. She indicated that in future reports of this nature, staff will quote both the account number and the account name.

4. RESULTS OF THE 1999 POLICE PROMOTION PROCESS

- Chief’s report dated 22 Feb 00

Vice Chair Baskerville put forward the following questions on the promotion policy: what is the period of validity or eligibility for the short list; what is the forecasted annual attrition rate for each rank; when is the next promotion process likely to occur; and what is the status of officers who did not apply. He wondered if there could be a process by which senior management could insert names on the list to ensure the Service is not over-looking some potential leaders amongst its ranks.

Chief Ford stated he would have to gather information and get back to the Board with respect to the attrition forecast. He indicated the next promotion process would normally take place next fall, though the Executive would like to delay it until the following spring. With respect to the status of officers who did not apply to the process, Chief Ford explained the promotional process clearly states that to be eligible for a promotion, an officer must apply to the process. Senior management can not violate the process by promoting someone who has not applied and gone through the process.

In response to a further question from Vice Chair Baskerville with regard to how long the eligibility list remains valid, Chief Ford indicated officers who are on the eligibility short-list remain on that list, and the Service would use it to promote officers until the end of May. An officer can remain on the list for up to two years without going through the process again though by doing so, they risk being by-passed by other officers applying to the program and getting higher marks than themselves.

Vice Chair Baskerville was concerned about the Service having enough officers to fill vacancies should there be an exodus of members retiring in 2000 and 2001. Chief Ford had no doubt that there are enough officers at the Sergeant and Staff Sergeant levels to fill any potential vacancies and he was fairly confident that the same would apply at the Inspector and Superintendent levels.

S. Kanellakos, Director General, noted the process is under evaluation and he expected a report on it very shortly. He believed there would be recommendations to change some aspects of the policy because there is a growing concern about the Service’s ability to fill vacancies in the future, as the demographics change and more officers become eligible for retirement. He re-iterated the Chief’s comments with regard to the length of validity of the eligibility list, adding staff are trying to move back the promotion process to January, February or March of each year so as not to impact on such things as budget timelines and holiday draws. He noted such a change would cause the eligible short list to remain valid until September of each year.

Member Buckingham wondered how many female officers are in the OCRPS. Chief Ford indicated there are approximately 140 female officers, representing 14% of the Service’s complement.

In light of the fact that 14% of the Service’s officers are female, member Buckingham wondered why only 5% of the promotions went to female officers. Chief Ford stated there is no explanation. He believed the promotional process is based on merit and the promotions reflect how each individual officer performed in terms of their evaluation, the simulation, and where they fell within it.

Member Buckingham speculated there may be some systemic aspects of the process that make it more difficult for women. Chief Ford stated he was not aware of any such problems and pointed out this year’s process resulted in a female officer being promoted to the rank of Superintendent.

Member Buckingham recalled exchanging correspondence and having some discussions with Chief Ford over the summer with regard to the fact that the Service has more stringent time requirements for writing the Sergeant’s exam than does the province. She also recalled Chief Ford had indicated he would be discussing the issue with the working committee and the Executive Command and she wondered what action has been taken to respond to that inquiry. She noted the OCRPS requires that an officer remain at the rank of Constable for 8 years before writing the Sergeant’s exam whereas the province requires only five years. She felt it is in the Service’s best interest to review that requirement and she wondered why the OCRPS would choose to put in place more stringent requirements than what is required by the Province. She argued that if a 75 factor is implemented for retirement, officers would have a 25 year career. She felt that to spend 8 of those 25 years as a Constable seemed a disproportionate amount of time.

Mr. Kanellakos confirmed the Executive Command met with the working committee, which had cross representation from the organization, and this was one of the issues the committee felt strongly about. He said the Executive made it known the policy would be implemented on a one year trial basis followed by a review. In light of the eight year timeframe, the Executive has a concern about the demographics of the organization and its ability to maintain an adequate pool of officers eligible for promotion. He indicated this issue would be part of the policy review.

Member Buckingham suggested the Board’s Policy Committee may want to address this issue. She acknowledged there was a time when most recruits were coming to the Police Service directly from high school and an eight year wait would have made sense. More and more, recruits are coming in with university degrees, post-graduate degrees and previous work experience. She felt that to expect them to spend the first eight years of their career as constables seemed like an immense waste of talent.

Member McCombie spoke in favor of the eight year timeframe for writing the Sergeant’s exam. He felt having a university degree does not make someone a good police officer or qualify them for a supervisory position in a police service. He argued constables spend their first two or three years learning and as they move up from probationary constable to third class, second class and first class constable, they acquire the skills and knowledge they need to move to a higher rank. He believed that it takes those eight years to identify the people who are prepared to put their name forward and go through the promotional process, and to lower the requirement would be a disrespect to the Police Service.

Mr. N. Patterson, wished to caution the Board about what he viewed as a tremendous risk with potentially disastrous results through affirmative action on a gender basis. He felt that, in policing, it is important to base promotions solely on merit. He believed the reason for the lower percentage of female officers at higher ranks is that it is a relatively recent phenomenon for women to choose policing as a career. Therefore, he argued it is only natural that there should be a lag between joining the force and attaining the same percentage at the higher ranks.

5. EFFECT OF BILL 25 AND REGULATIONS ON THE OPERATION OF THE OTTAWA-CARLETON REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD

- Board Solicitor’s report dated 23 Feb 00

Chair Kreling referenced the guidelines approved by the Transition Board earlier in the day which were distributed to Board members at the start of the meeting. He invited Mr. E. Johnston, Board Solicitor, to comment on the guidelines and his report.

Mr. Johnston recalled that at the 24 January 2000 Board meeting he indicated the Fewer Municipal Politicians Act 1999 would have minimal impact on the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board. He now believes the impact on the Board may be more significant than originally anticipated. Mr. Johnston explained that Regulation 100 of 2000, which was issued by the Province on 10 February 2000, contains a series of prohibition of activities and decision-making authority for municipalities and local boards. He noted the prohibitions are fairly broad-reaching. However, relief from those prohibitions can be attained either in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Transition Board or with the approval of the Transition Board. He also noted the Regulation makes provision for relief from the prohibition in emergency situations. In light of these provisions, the Transition Board has issued its first guidelines.

Though it has very significant and broad authority, Mr. Johnston believes the Transition Board intends to be minimally intrusive in the activities of municipalities and local boards and expects them to conduct "business as usual".

Mr. Johnston indicated the Transition Board has requested copies of budget documents for all municipalities and local boards and will be reviewing them for decisions they feel may impact the new City of Ottawa. He believed normal transactions and activities will be allowed to proceed as long as funds have been allocated in the approved budgets. However, some restrictions apply to the acquisition and disposal of property, moving money from reserve funds, and decisions or projects that involve unbudgeted funds.

In closing, Mr. Johnston noted issues surrounding human resources remain unclear. One of the guidelines issued by the Transition Board pertains to human resources, though from his preliminary review of it, Mr. Johnston believed it only permits the hiring of temporary or casual employees and certainly nothing that extends beyond the end of this year. He thought a second human resource guideline would be forthcoming but he did not believe it would provide any further significant relief with respect to filling new or permanent positions. Nonetheless, he expected the Transition Board would allow the Police Service to continue with its normal recruitment process, as contemplated in the budget.

With respect to the Transition Board’s pending human resource guideline, Chair Kreling explained Transition Board members have been assigned different tasks. Ms. Guilbault has been assigned the task of preparing guidelines on human resource issues, in consultation with representatives from the municipalities and local boards, for the Transition Board’s approval. Ms. Guilbault’s report is expected to contain specific guidelines with respect to hiring and contract negotiations.

Based on Mr. Johnston’s comments, Vice Chair Baskerville believed that to be pro-active, the Police Services Board should prepare a submission to the Transition Board so that it may be allowed to recruit and promote within the Service’s authorized ceiling. He noted this would also allow the Board to hire a new Chief of Police and to continue with the normal recruitment process already under way. He felt these are serious issues which the Board should address quickly.

Vice Chair Baskerville also noted Mr. Johnston’s report speaks to restrictions on incurring financial liability in the year 2001. He recalled the Police Services Board has periodically pre-committed small amounts towards the end of a fiscal year, against the upcoming year’s budget for the purchase of uniforms and other normal supplies. He believed this practice would now be restricted and suggested it should also be addressed in the submission to the Transition Board. He asked for Mr. Johnston’s comments as to whether the Police Services Board should make a list of its concerns and submit them to the Transition Board as soon as possible.

Mr. Johnston believed that would be highly advisable, though he noted it is always difficult, when embarking on an exercise of that nature, to capture all the possibilities. He acknowledged there are some serious questions facing the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board and the Police Service that should be addressed as soon as possible.

Chief Ford stated the Transition Board’s legal advisor had recently indicated to him that the Transition Board would not object to the recruitment process, as long as the Service remains within its authorized complement.

Though it seemed reasonable to her that the normal recruitment process would be allowed to proceed, member Buckingham noted the legislative framework and direction provided thus far would suggest that it is not appropriate. Therefore, she believed it behooved the Board to formally write to the Transition Board. She suggested the submission should also address job classification changes, and the need for flexibility in terms of unbudgeted expenditures with a value in excess of $10,000. She noted that on occasion, operational matters arise causing the Police Service and/or the Board to incur expenditures significantly more than $10,000, such as legal fees associated with the OC Transpo Inquest, though the direction the Police Services Board has given the Service is to ensure expenditures stay within the over-all budget envelope.

Member Legendre spoke in favor of sending a submission to the Transition Board and felt part of the message should be that, though the Police Services Board fully understands the purpose of the Transition Board, the municipal amalgamation will not have a significant impact on the Police Service.

Chair Kreling noted the Transition Board does not currently have a guideline with respect to collective agreements and under Regulation 100, Section 4, the Police Services Board can not make adjustments to compensation packages. He wondered if Mr. Johnston had any insight into whether or not the Transition Board could introduce guidelines to permit collective bargaining and compensation package increases.

Mr. Johnston explained the starting point is the legislation which states what can be done and prescribes what shall be done. He further explained that the regulation simply implements what is in the legislation, whereas the guidelines provide a more detailed approach to how the regulation is effected. The legislation prohibits collective bargaining and there are currently no provisions to change that. Therefore, he maintained the ability to have collective bargaining during this transition year has been taken away.

Pursuant to the discussion on this matter, Chair Kreling indicated he would correspond with the Transition Board with respect to the issues identified and the Board’s process for hiring a policy analyst on a contract basis.

Member Buckingham believed the hiring of the policy analyst should not be an issue because guidelines issued by the Transition Board permit hiring on a contract basis.

6. BOARD ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCES

- Executive Director’s report dated 22 Feb 00

Mr. N. Patterson, believed the Board should not spend any money sending Vice Chair Baskerville and member Buckingham to conferences until they do some homework on the basics of policing.

Vice Chair Baskerville wondered if the Police Service would be sending a senior officer to the forum in Banff. He noted the purpose of the forum is the bring together people from policing and governing bodies and he felt it could be beneficial to senior officers in the Service. Chief Ford indicated the Service will be sending an officer at the Superintendent level.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board approve:

7. COMMENDATION LETTERS (SINCE LAST BOARD MEETING)

- Chief’s report dated 21 Feb 00

8. CHIEF’S VERBAL REPORT

Member Legendre wondered if there was any progress on the case of the presumed homicide on Cummings Avenue. Deputy Chief Bevan indicated charges have been laid in that matter but the body has not been recovered. The victim is presumed dead and staff will be tendering evidence in court to prove that he died as a result of the incident.