The Board approved the Minutes of 12 and 20 Apr 99. Councillor Legendre noted a typographical error on page 25 of the Minutes of 26 Apr 99. The minutes indicate Member McCombie had voted both in favour of and against a Motion requesting a suspension of the Rules of Procedure to consider a subsequent Motion. Member McCombie had actually voted against the Motion to suspend.

Councillor Legendre also asked that a paragraph at the bottom of page 24 be amended to indicate he had spoken in favour of suspending the Rules because his subsequent Motion could not have been brought forward prior to the Sweeney hearing being completed. The Councillor acknowledged the Minutes as written spoke to content, but that his suggested amendment spoke to a matter of timing. He also noted a grammatical error in the second-to-last line of the same page, whereby "it’s" should have read "its".

Councillor Legendre then referred to a past request he had made that following the confirmation of the Minutes, the Board consider adding an agenda item entitled "Matters Arising from the Minutes". He noted that questions frequently arose from matters dealt with in previous meetings, and that in fact, he had questions arising from the Board’s meeting of 26 Apr 99.

As an example, Councillor Legendre referenced page 29 of the 26 Apr 99 Minutes dealing with the public complaints process. He reminded members that at a meeting of the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards (OAPSB) at the end of April, mention had been made that the Town of Cobourg’s web site was particularly good, and had won an award from an American organization. The Councillor asked if there had been any follow up to his queries from the previous month regarding the OCRPS web site. He also asked whether a copy of an instructional video to which he had referred, regarding how staff would deal with complaints, had been received. Councillor Legendre also noted he had asked if complaints brochures were available in the Region’s community police centres. He said he had received no answers on these matters since he had made his inquiries.

Chief Ford responded by informing the Board that Deputy Chief Bevan had obtained a copy of the video concerned. The Chief said he believed brochures could be found in each of the community police centres, and said he believed he had so informed the Board at the time the inquiry was made.

Chair Kreling reported that a written response to these inquiries had been brought to the Executive Director this day and would be copied and forwarded to the Councillor and other Board members.

Councillor Legendre noted a feature of the Cobourg web site was the presence of a complaints feedback "hot key". He felt this was a particularly useful mechanism, and one that could be incorporated into the OCRPS web site. He said he had visited the OCRPS site and had found no complaints section. He noted he had mentioned this previously, and asked for a response in the near future. Finally, Councillor Legendre commented that the material found on the OCRPS web site seemed extremely dated.

Chair Kreling stated the Councillor’s comment was in the nature of a new inquiry, and should be dealt with as such. Councillor Legendre agreed to follow up on the matter at the end of the meeting during "Inquiries", despite feeling it was a "Matter Arising from the Minutes".

CARRIED

CARRIED as amended

"DEVELOPING COMPETENCY:

(Deferred from 22 March 99 meeting)

- Executive Director’s report dated 18 Mar 99

By way of introduction, Chair Kreling advised that Dr. Luc Hébert’s work with respect to his thesis on competencies and measurements of police personnel was brought to the Board’s attention by Member Legendre several months ago. At member Legendre’s suggestion, Dr. Hébert was subsequently invited to present his findings to the Board, and an executive summary of his thesis entitled "Developing Competency: A Road to Quality and Result-Oriented Policing" has been provided to Board members for information.

As a police officer for 27 years, Dr. Hébert advised that he began to question the capabilities of the evaluation system to become compatible with community policing, especially to evaluate police personnel. After much study, he determined that the two were incompatible, and with no solution handy, he began his work on this subject. He clarified he is still with the Quebec Police Force (QPF), but his research is his own and does not reflect what is being done there.

Dr. Hébert indicated that his research included an extensive documentary study, followed by interviews with three groups of police officers from the Montreal community police organization and the QPF: senior managers, supervisors and patrol officers. One question he asked was whether the multi-source evaluation was compatible with a police environment, and all groups responded favourably. What this means is that a supervisor could evaluate his manager, and a patrol officer could evaluate his supervisor. He indicated this proposition is revolutionary especially in a police environment, and while some had reservations about the way it would be done, no one opposed to it.

From the research, a competency synthesis was developed between patrol officers, supervisors and management officers, the only difference being what was expressed in order of importance between the three positions. With his research completed, he went back to work and applied the information learned with respect to theories, principles and practices. After further study, he developed 60 competencies for a patrol officer; however, since no person can be totally competent in so many areas, it meant they had to be managed as a team. It is the total of the team that would have the global competency of the 60 competencies. He stated that when police work with the competency, there is a new image of the work environment and this type of analysis can be done for all police functions.

When the organization has the competencies to have a person do his work as desired, those people can then be developed within the competency fields. A person is not evaluated on whether they are good or not - they are evaluated to identify which are the best in certain competencies and where weaknesses in competencies exist. A system must then be put in place to help develop those competencies identified as weak.

The benefit of working under competencies is that it recognizes the human being as the centre of human resources and the more competent they become, the better able they will be to meet the result desired from them. It also identifies potential; the previous system put all the personnel at the same level and no one needed to go beyond because there was nothing to recognize achievement. This system identifies and values the potential of the people because more often than not these positions come from within the police organization; for instance, patrol officers become captains. This process allows the continuous development of competency to be able to adapt as time and the environment changes. He indicated that during his research, he often heard that people from all levels did not know what was expected of them, besides being a police officer. When a person starts to think like that, they won’t produce the quality of service needed.

Dr. Hébert stated that this type of system implies and integrates all the different functions of human resources. The competency profiles are the centre of human resources so all the functions are adjusted with this in mind. It implies a complete change of the dynamic of human resources in an organization. This can be done partially with some human resource functions or by tying it in with development and training and individual performance evaluation with the development principle.

This process allows the integration of human resources. In the past, the various aspects of human resources have functioned as separate chimneys - there was not much information going from hiring and staffing and training and development. This new system puts pressure on the integration of human resources and if there is a competency profile and people are evaluated, it puts pressure on the organization to have a tightly integrated development and training function.

When enhanced capabilities of mobilization/adaptation are implemented, within a very short time span it is evident there is increased motivation of personnel because they feel they are being tied in with the development of the system. It brings a balance between the result and the quality of service. It also focuses on training requirements and development for the future of the organization and provides a better chance to adapt to what will develop in the future.

Dr. Hébert indicated that this type of system can offer a lot, but it has a few prerequisites that are quite important and are very complex to implement. While it is not the answer to all the problems an organization might experience, it is a type of system that can achieve a balance between the citizens who receive police services who want quality service, which is tied with the definition of the competencies.

In summary, while he recognized that competencies are fairly new, he was convinced it can work in police organizations. He advised that the project he has been working on for the past 18 months for the officers of the QPF will be implemented in mid-June, starting with officers/managers. He cautioned that this type of system cannot be rushed. Patience is necessary because it is a very important change. He was convinced there is a successful and promising future for this type of system.

In response to questions from Member Legendre, Dr. Hébert advised this program has been implemented with the QPF and will be implemented with the Montreal City Police and the Canadian National Railroad police. He added that with the Montreal police and the QPF, this philosophy generally enters with the training and development function. It has been done in Quebec with these two large organizations because a lot of work has been done in the past 20 years in France with respect to a competency approach to training, and there is consequently a lot of knowledge to be obtained. He confirmed that it begins with training and development competencies, followed by evaluation and hiring appropriately.

Member Legendre questioned how the QPF implemented this kind of approach for training and development. Dr. Hébert advised that they took the training they previously provided and built within it competencies to allow for measurements to determine if a person has integrated the new knowledge provided to them. These same measures can be used later on to verify if the new knowledge is still being exploited as a competency. Member Legendre was interested in learning how an organization starts because someone has to be trained on how to use the system. He questioned how the QPF did it and whether that expertise existed within the organization, or were consultants hired to assist them. Dr. Hébert stated there are consulting firms, but there are not too many people who know how to introduce it in a police environment and therefore, the experts were "built" as the process progressed. He further stated that when you start, you have to do a job analysis and extract the competency profile. There is a need to analyze every job and to break it down into three parts: knowledge to do the job; the know-how to do the job; and the attitude to do the job. From these three areas it can be learned how to extract the competency, and the training and development people can determine what is needed in terms of training. Currently, he is building a referential for the competencies, especially for police, which is a kind of universal profile to help extract the competencies.

Member Legendre referred to the positives and negatives presented as part of Dr. Hébert’s discourse with respect to the perception of this system, and noted that if one was to look at "evaluation by peers", it seems the management officers, for example, did not care to be evaluated by their peers. However, in that same category they seem to be reasonably comfortable with evaluation by their subordinates. He would have expected it to be the other way around. Dr. Hébert clarified that for peers (especially management), they said they do not see how a captain, for example, can evaluate another captain because they do not have enough contact and do not know enough about each other’s work to be able to evaluate what they do in terms of competencies.

Member Legendre asked staff to respond to the presentation. Steve Kanellakos, Director General of the OCRPS, welcomed the opportunity to comment, saying that Dr. Hébert has done the Ottawa-Carleton Police a big favour by speaking so positively talking about a system which they are very much supportive of and are currently involved in implementing. He advised that the OCRPS has developed competency-based profiles for all positions in the organization, and are now at the stage where they have put forward a proposal to the Executive Group for a performance management system that is based completely on competency-based profiles. Further, he advised that their training plan and their selection-recruitment process are based on competency-based profiles, but also link back to the provincial government initiative that was done. Basically, they are realigning all of their human resource systems now and facing many of the problems Dr. Hébert alluded to in trying to make this kind of a change and educate everyone in terms of what it is about.

Mr. Kanellakos further advised that Ottawa-Carleton Police had used consultants to help coach and transfer knowledge to the staff. However, there was no road map to do it in the police organization and they relied very much on the different positions of police officers and civilians in the organization, bringing them together in focus groups and using their understanding to define the competencies and behaviours they expect. He saw this as a very difficult process to bring in, and recognized the difficulties in aligning behaviours with competencies.

Dr. Hébert agreed with the steps the Ottawa-Carleton Police were taking. He stated his profile is generic and the differences of the organization have to be identified from within. The OCRPS can make it the way it wants to, but the principle has to be there and one of the prerequisites, which is very important, is the need for unconditional support from top management because there will be problems in the future and it is a system that requires a lot of investment in terms of resources.

Member Legendre inquired whether the Ottawa-Carleton competency model includes multi-source evaluation. S. Kanellakos indicated that the whole performance management system proposal before the Executive Group is based on the competency profile. He indicated they are evaluating performance on the basis of ability to problem-solve, and on people’s contributions to the Board’s objectives. He advised they did not want to introduce a performance management system that was too sophisticated when most of their managers are still getting used to a consistent performance management system. The fact that three former organizations with three different ways of evaluating performance have recently joined must be taken into consideration. It is a huge training component just getting people to practice the basic concepts of performance management. He stated their eventual objective is to arrive at some kind of evaluation, whether by survey or peer evaluation, or some form of coaching, of our performance management system. For now the police are using more of a superior-subordinate type appraisal based on business objectives and the ability to problem-solve. This is the whole philosophy behind the district policing model that Montreal is currently using, and which Ottawa is currently moving towards. It is hoped the organization can migrate over a two or three-year period to a more sophisticated model.

Dr. Hébert reminded members that the police have to be careful not to have an "overdose" of change; there must be respect for the "rhythm" of the organization, and there must be a change in the thinking of management before there will be a change in attitude.

Member Buckingham agreed Dr. Hébert’s presentation was timely and suggested the OCRPS keep in touch with him because of the knowledge that can be shared. She thanked member Legendre for suggesting the Board invite Dr. Hébert to discuss this topic, especially in view of the fact that staff have been working on the same issue.

RECEIVED

2. STATUS REPORT ON ORGANIZATIONAL

CHANGE AND SHORT TERM PRIORITIES

Chief Ford presented an overview of his report. Highlights included the following accomplishments:

The Chief also reported on new challenges for the Service, which include:

Finally, the Chief reported on short-term priorities, which include:

The Chief concluded his presentation by stating the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton have recognized the quality of the new organization. He noted the police have effectively responded to every emergency situation when required, and that crime was down overall. Chief Ford felt staff are gaining confidence in community policing, and are now better trained, housed and equipped. He affirmed that members of the Service are willing to do what it takes to make the organization one in which all can take pride, knowing community policing is the right approach. The Chief noted more information would be forthcoming this summer. He also thanked Dr. Gail Johnson, Director of Corporate Planning, and David Pepper, Director of Community Development, for their efforts. A copy of the Chief’s report and presentation is held on file with the Executive Director.

Councillor Legendre indicated he was pleased to hear the Chief say that crime was down, but noted that information he had received from Statistic Canada (StatsCan) showed while the crime rate was decreasing in the Region, other regions in the province were doing better. He pointed out clearance rates in Ottawa-Carleton were the highest out of ten of the largest municipalities and he asked Chief Ford to comment.

Chief Ford indicated clearance rates have different meanings to different organizations. He noted some organizations have clearance rates that might be considered good, but were not reflective of an ability to clear crimes. The Chief noted there were different ways of categorizing cases as cleared, and that in many cases, rules are interpreted differently. He noted the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) Justice Statistics Committee, of which Steve Kanellakos, Director General of Administration, is a member, is working with StatsCan to make the statistics more meaningful. At the present time, the Chief noted the interpretations are broad.

Mr. Kanellakos added that statistics attributed to OCRPS in the StatsCan data represent crime in the entire metropolitan Ottawa-Hull area, and include police services on the Québec side of the Ottawa River. He noted there were inaccuracies in terms of how Ottawa-Carleton is perceived and how it is rated. Mr. Kanellakos added there were also statistical inaccuracies involving OPP transition areas, in that the statistics include the population in these areas but not the police officers assigned to them. He said this would render inaccurate statistics such as police-to-population ratios, crime per 100,000 population, and clearance rates. Mr. Kanellakos stated StatsCan has reported this information inaccurately for two years in a row, and it was hoped the information would be correct next year to be able to put actual crime rates into the proper perspective. He noted the Service had learned of the discrepancy between StatsCan’s figures and the Service’s own internal calculations following inquiries from the media.

Chief Ford added the StatsCan information includes communities as far away as Rockland in its statistical data, and the Service does not police these areas. Chief Ford stated the Service has communicated with StatsCan over the past two years in an attempt to correct these misrepresentations.

Councillor Legendre indicated he was glad the picture was not as bad as he had originally believed. However, he believed the population figures were correct. Mr. Kanellakos offered to share the Service’s statistics with the Board, as these figures have been calculated to reflect what are believed to be the actual statistics for Ottawa-Carleton.

Councillor Legendre noted statistical data can be interpreted in numerous ways, and said he preferred to examine the data in different ways for a better overall contextual understanding. He asked that in future, the Board receive a comparison with the statistical data of other major cities in the province in addition to a year-by-year analysis for the Region.

Chair Kreling asked if information was expected from StatsCan as a result of the correspondence that had been sent. He noted this might provide clarification to the Board by using an existing parameter. Mr. Kanellakos said it was not expected that StatsCan would reformat its documents. However, he suggested the Service could reformat the StatsCan data to more accurately reflect what it believed was correct.

Chair Kreling felt the data could be presented in such a way as to reflect the Region’s geography and police-to-population ratios rather than the larger catchment area shown in StatsCan profiles. He suggested this might help provide a point of comparison to other communities which Councillor Legendre was seeking.

Member McCombie suggested it was impractical to expect StatsCan to conform with the Region’s system of data collection. He agreed with earlier opinions that the data collected was often manipulated in different ways, resulting in statistics which often differed from the data which had originally been collected.

Responding to a question from Member Buckingham about a new "Partnership in Action" program, Deputy Chief Mackie explained this program resulted from a past incident involving an ethnic minority group. He said a consultation process with communities had been initiated whereby district inspectors were meeting with communities to identify problems and establish short term plans. The Deputy Chief noted Mr. Pepper has also been actively involved with this process.

Member Buckingham understood this to be a mechanism the Service would use to reach out to the community on a regular basis for input on the Service’s vision for community-based policing. The Deputy Chief confirmed this, and indicated the Service will bring forth a report in the near future.

RECEIVED

3. UPDATE ON DISTRICT POLICING

Deputy Chief Mackie introduced Superintendent Peter Cuthbert and Staff Sergeant Doug Munro to assist with the presentation.

Deputy Chief Mackie said the implementation of operational policing districts is one of the organization’s largest and most significant changes. He noted this change occurred on 17 and 18 Jan 99, at which time nearly 350 front line officers were redeployed into 14 districts. He noted that with the completion of the OPP Transition, another two districts will be added in July. The Deputy Chief said the same overall number of officers in patrol services remain on the front line. He stated that over 90% of the officers received one of their three requested choices of location.

Deputy Chief Mackie affirmed that district policing continues to ensure that police respond to emergency calls. He explained it builds on an understanding of criminal activity through crime analysis, and adopts problem-solving techniques to prevent or reduce the need for emergency response. District policing also introduces Differential Response, whereby lower priority calls are given to designated officers to keep emergency response officers free to handle higher priority emergency calls. Deputy Chief Mackie explained a public information "Make the Right Call" campaign had also been launched in January. He noted all this was taking place at the same time the Service was migrating towards a new records management system. The Deputy Chief noted calls for service during the first two quarters of 1999 were down from the same period for the previous year.

Deputy Chief Mackie said the Service established review processes to monitor and evaluate daily activities related to district policing service delivery. He noted that in order for the Service to make informed decisions on front-line policing, those involved in front-line activities were consulted. From the outset, the Service undertook to identify and resolve start-up problems regarding deployment, logistics and standardization of processes and procedures. The Deputy Chief noted monitoring has been continuous in the areas of unit deployment and activity history. In addition, he noted front line staff have been contacted for their observations, concerns and feedback. He said the first of a series of quarterly Patrol Services planning sessions had been held, involving over 60 district inspectors and supervisors, which built on interviews with over 40 front line officers. As a result of this planning session, an interim report was prepared which identified thirteen issue areas and thirty-three recommendations for action. This operational report is to be released to internal staff to demonstrate the changes that have been made within six months of the transition to district policing.

Member Buckingham asked if the Board would be provided with a copy of the interim report for information. Deputy Chief Mackie confirmed that it would.

RECEIVED

4. OPP TRANSITION UPDATE

Deputy Chief Mackie stated that on 5 July 99, Ottawa-Carleton will assume policing for Kanata, Goulbourn and West-Carleton. He noted that on this date, the unification of Police Services in the Region will be complete, and for the first time, the Region’s residents will be served by one Police Service. He said that as with the previous three change-overs, planning for this transition has progressed smoothly.

The Deputy Chief noted Vice Chair Baskerville has overseen these activities in his role as Chair of the Committee to Unify Police Services (CUPS), and that the transition has been guided by Superintendent Hill and Inspector Ron Lamothe, the district inspector for Rideau, Goulbourn, West Carleton, Kanata, and Stittsville. Deputy Chief Mackie reported the Service has continued to work with the OPP in coordinating the transition. He said the new police station for Kanata is scheduled to open on the first of July, and that only minor changes were needed prior to the Service moving into the West Carleton facility. The OPP will vacate in mid-June, with officers deploying from Kanata until the change over date. In addition, the Deputy Chief reported each of the five western community police centres will remain open with volunteer assistants, and that two community centre officers have begun meeting with volunteers.

The Deputy Chief reported that 49 OPP officers will join OCRPS in July, representing 63% of the officers required plus four civilians. Ottawa-Carleton police officers will make up the rest of the 29 sworn personnel being assigned to the Western district. Deputy Chief Mackie noted each officer has been fitted and issued uniforms by the Service’s quartermaster, and that the outfitting of newly arrived patrol cars is almost complete. He stated equipment and infrastructure needs are being finalized and will be ready before the 5th of July. The Deputy Chief said Investigators from the OPP and OCRPS have recently met to discuss case and file management. In terms of orientation and training for officers, the Deputy Chief said ride-along exchanges for patrol officers in both services would soon commence and would continue up to the change over date. Deputy Chief Mackie said media and community awareness strategies will be intensified over June, emphasizing the "Make the Right Call" ad campaign. Deputy Chief Mackie affirmed that the Service would continue to ensure residents of Kanata, Goulbourn and West Carleton were informed of the changes. He noted upcoming activities would include community meetings, community forums and open houses.

The Deputy Chief commended OPP Inspector Larry Beechey on his professionalism and for his work in helping the OPP-to-OCRPS transitions since 1995 work smoothly. Additionally, he commended the work performed by the OCRPS implementation team and all those involved in the transition and planning processes over the last number of years.

Councillor Legendre asked why the previous two reports were presented verbally. Deputy Chief Mackie indicated that previous updates on OPP transitions in the communities and to the Board had traditionally been verbal. Member Legendre asked if written documentation could not have been provided. Chair Kreling noted this has simply been the ongoing custom since 1995, when the first transitions occurred. Vice Chair Baskerville explained he had indicated to the Deputy Chief that a brief verbal update based on the steering committee’s more detailed meetings would be sufficient. The Vice Chair noted this was likely to be the last such update, given the short time frame left to the transition. He suggested a post-completion report in July could offer more written detail. Councillor Legendre stated he was not attempting to lay blame for the format of the report, but rather explained that he retained information much better visually, and preferred to receive information in written form.

Member Adam indicated he had received positive feedback from the community regarding the transition, and he thanked the transition team for their efforts. He also thanked the OPP for the work it had done in helping the transition come about, and expressed his hope that the positive sentiments would continue.

Chair Kreling thanked Member Adam for his comments as a resident of one of the communities involved in the transition. He noted comments from other communities which had been amalgamated had been similar.

RECEIVED

5. 1998 ACTIVITY REPORT

Copies of the 1998 Activity Report were distributed at the meeting to the Board and members of the public.

Responding to a query from Councillor Legendre as to how the 1998 Activity Report would be further disseminated, David Pepper, Director of Community Development, indicated the report before the Board had been prepared by the Service’s Corporate Planning branch and was currently being formatted for printing. He said the document would be available for public distribution by the end of the week in both official languages. Mr. Pepper said the Service would also distribute the Activity Report through community police centres and libraries and would mail them to community associations, businesses and members of the public who have expressed an interest on issues related to community policing and crime prevention in Ottawa-Carleton.

RECEIVED

6. PRESENTATION - AIR SERVICES PROPOSAL

Deputy Chief Bevan introduced Constable Barrie MacDonald, a qualified commercial pilot who played a significant role in the development of the air services proposal, and Detective Iain McFarlane, who was involved first-hand in the use of fixed-wing aircraft for surveillance purposes, to assist in the presentation.

Deputy Chief Bevan acknowledged the report spoke of the Service seeking final approval for the proposal later in the year. He noted it was before the Board at present because of a suspicion that provincial funding that was currently available would shortly disappear. He said if the Board indicated to the Ministry that the Service would, in principle, try to institute a pilot project, it would be possible to obtain some of the funding. The Deputy noted that in order to secure the largest piece of funding available to the Service, the application would have to be submitted by early July. He said he was hopeful of receiving an answer on the success of the application by the end of September, which would allow the Service to return to the Board for a final decision before the end of the year.

Deputy Chief Bevan reported that at a Ministry-sponsored meeting he had attended in Halton Region, the Ministry was encouraging the use of helicopter surveillance to try to address certain issues related to fatalities involving police pursuits. The Deputy Chief noted a helicopter would be ideal in an urban setting. However, he explained that when considerations such as the Region’s geographical area were taken into account, including vast spans of rural land, combined with a helicopter’s relatively low air speed and the fact it could remain airborne for limited periods of time without refueling, problems resulted related to the amount of distance the helicopter could cover practically. Deputy Chief Bevan said that after the Halton meeting, Constable MacDonald had been invited by the Executive to participate in this project because of his experience as a pilot and because of his participation in similar studies in the past. He explained Cst. MacDonald had begun to examine available sources of funding.

Constable MacDonald informed the Board the Service had contacted the National Search and Rescue Secretariat regarding a new initiative from the Federal Government. He indicated federal officials who had been given an overview of the program planned for the Region felt that Ottawa-Carleton would likely qualify for funding of between 50% - 75% of initial equipment costs.

Deputy Chief Bevan noted a number of airborne operations were in use across Canada. He stated Calgary has a helicopter operation, whereas Toronto and Edmonton have fixed wing operations. He stated the OPP and RCMP Air Divisions use both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, and the OPP had recently added more fixed wing aircraft to its fleet. Deputy Chief Bevan also stated the Service has discussed partnering with the RCMP Air Division, but noted there were problems in terms of both the cost and the availability of the RCMP service when required.

Deputy Chief Bevan said results in other jurisdictions have been significant; in Calgary, the number of pursuits decreased by 50% in the first year. He noted Calgary’s air unit was involved in 27 pursuits, and in each one, those responsible were apprehended. Locally, he explained the Service used aircraft in its marihuana eradication program, leading to the seizure and destruction of approximately $1.5 million worth of marihuana. He explained that during surveillance operations, officers can follow at safe speeds, resulting in a safer situation for the community.

Detective MacFarlane presented a taped demonstration of fixed-wing aerial surveillance techniques which led to the apprehension and successful conviction of several suspects responsible for a number of violent robberies in 1997. The video demonstrated that surveillance could be maintained from an altitude of 7,500 feet, and at a distance from which the suspects could not determine they were being followed. This allowed ground surveillance teams to follow at a safe distance and at a reasonable speed.

The Deputy Chief stated changes in technology now permit surveillance cameras to operate at a high resolution from almost a kilometre away. He noted the presentation the Board had witnessed had been taped over the course of a three hour surveillance operation. A helicopter would not have been able to remain airborne for this length of time, in addition to which they are easily noticeable because of their noise. He said these are reasons why the Service is proposing the use of fixed wing aircraft.

The Deputy Chief stated the proposed mandate is to provide support services to all operational front-line and specialty sections of the Police Service through airborne surveillance day and night. He explained the surveillance equipment the Service proposes to purchase for the fixed wing aircraft can perform both night and day, using a "Forward-Looking Infra-Red" (FLIR) device which will allow the Service to track vehicles and people. Deputy Chief Bevan said the mission would be to direct the course of pursuits. He said the Service wants to take the same approach taken in Calgary, which is to publicize the Service’s airborne capability and presence. The Deputy Chief said the Service would also engage in short and long range surveillance, and he noted the FLIR technology is capable of detecting body heat, which would aid in missing persons searches. In addition to this, the technology would aid in investigations dealing with vehicle theft, break and enters, robberies, dangerous offenders searches, crowd control, Level 5 Escorts (joint operations with the RCMP to provide security to visiting dignitaries), drug detection and eradication, and prisoner transfers.

The Deputy Chief outlined there had been in excess of 10,000 police pursuits in the Province of Ontario between 1991 and 1997, resulting in 33 fatalities, 6 of which involved innocent third party victims. He noted 80% of pursuits occur at night, and that residential and rural pursuits account for between 45% and 50% of these. Deputy Chief Bevan said half of all police pursuits occur between June and October. He stated 36 pursuits had taken place in 1998, and it seemed this trend was increasing for 1999. Of these 36, 12 resulted in property damage, and in over 60 percent of cases, the suspects had escaped.

Constable MacDonald then provided a comparison between helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

He noted helicopters have the advantages of low forward speed, hovering capability, a small turning radius, vertical landing and takeoff capability in small areas, the ability to work in confined area operations and can lift external loads. The disadvantages included an overall cost three times that of fixed wing aircraft, low cruising speed, low fuel capacity, an increase in fuel consumption during specialty work, a reduction in on-scene time due to distances involved, and an unsuitability for prisoner transfers.

Fixed wing advantages included a lower overall cost, high cruising speed, larger fuel capacity, larger payload capability, and increased pilot availability. Disadvantages included a requirement for larger takeoff and landing areas, no hovering capability, high forward speed and a larger circling radius.

Vice Chair Baskerville thanked staff for the overview. He noted that in the past two years, two proposals had come forward pertaining to the acquisition of aircraft. Both times, the Board requested specific information prior to considering the matter again. The Vice Chair expressed disappointment that the information requested was missing from the presentation. Some of the issues he had requested information on included: a description of deficiencies in current operations; defined operational priorities, which would determine whether a fixed wing or rotary plane should be sought; a detailed analysis of the two options; an operational concept - i.e. whether it would operate during the day or night, the hours of operation/day; who would fly the aircraft - police officers or commercial pilots, and cost comparisons for both including training and back-up; the cost of replacing officers on the front-line; detailed maintenance; and statistical information on the duration of pursuits. He concluded by saying he had many questions and would be prepared to sit down with staff to discuss the details that he would like addressed.

Deputy Chief Bevan stated that many of Vice Chair Baskerville’s questions were taken into account and he attempted to respond to them. He noted there are two qualified pilots currently working for the Police Service who could fly the aircraft. It would fly day and night. Statistical information is available on the duration of pursuits, with the average pursuit lasting 14 minutes.

Cst. MacDonald felt a detailed explanation of maintenance schedules and requirements would have required too much of the Board’s time, but noted the statistical information was available. He stated the Service would have access to Transport Canada’s training facility for pilots. He also noted that training and entry level requirements have been addressed and the Service’s pilots meet or exceed them.

Member Buckingham said she did not need convincing that an aircraft would be beneficial, but she had concerns about cost. She submitted a motion suggesting that if the Service determines the implementation of extended air services is the most cost effective way for the organization to achieve its objectives, there must be offsetting cost reductions elsewhere in the organization to ensure there is no increase in the overall budget.

She also expressed concern that when a report is submitted to the Board, she expected to receive all the information necessary to allow her to make an informed decision, and to receive it in advance to allow time for reflection.

Member Buckingham added there is no question the aircraft would be good to have, but ultimately, trade-offs will need to be made. The Police Service already faces significant pressures and will need to work towards no budgetary increase in 2000. She said she could support acquiring the aircraft if it represents no net increase and if the necessary resources can be found within the organization.

Member McCombie called the service of an aircraft a tremendous asset to the service and he hoped a way would be found to finance the purchase. He sought and received clarification about the role played by Regional Police in the transfer of prisoners. Deputy Chief Bevan assured him that surveillance needs are scheduled, negating the requirement to have personnel on standby to provide this service.

Councillor Legendre questioned the use of the aircraft for prisoner transfers. He believed this was a transportation problem which did not allow the aircraft to be used to the best of its ability. Regarding Level 5 Escorts, the Councillor felt the primary responsibility for securing the safety of visiting dignitaries rested with the RCMP and he wondered what the Service’s involvement was.

The Deputy Chief explained that often the entourage traverses Regional Roads, which necessitates the Service’s assistance. He noted that recently, nine Police staff had been assigned to a Level 5 Escort to assist with traffic flow at intersections. He elaborated that one of the responsibilities was to use the aircraft to determine that the route ahead was clear, and to communicate this with the convoy.

The Councillor then noted the RCMP Air Division possessed its own aircraft. He felt that using Level 5 Escorts as a reason for purchasing aircraft for the OCRPS was a weak argument. Deputy Chief Bevan noted the aircraft’s use for prisoner transfers and escorts could lead to a decrease in the number of ground personnel required, resulting in potential savings.

Councillor Legendre said he also did not understand why the scene commander would need to be located in the aircraft. The Deputy Chief said the technology would allow a video signal to be transmitted as the image was being captured, so that the scene commander would not need to be present in the aircraft. Councillor Legendre then asked if this was the case, why the scene commander was listed as a feature under the list of mission capabilities. Deputy Chief Bevan replied that this was intended to reflect the aircraft’s use as an aid to the scene commander.

Councillor Legendre asked whether the FLIR technology was an active or passive infra-red detection device. The Deputy Chief believed the device had been listed as a passive system. The Councillor then asked if, in addition to the pilot, another person would be required in the aircraft to operate the camera. Deputy Chief Bevan confirmed that an observer would be required to set up the equipment. He noted the equipment was computerized, and that once a target had been acquired, the camera would automatically follow the target.

Councillor Legendre stated he had no problem with the technology and believed it would be useful. However, he adopted the same approach as member Buckingham in that if it was determined to be cost effective, the Service will have to find the resources within the organization to do it. He inquired whether member Buckingham’s motion would affect the time frame proposed for acquisition of the aircraft.

Deputy Chief Bevan responded that he would have to consult with the Executive office. Member Legendre interpreted this to mean additional funds had been expected. The Deputy Chief explained he was not prepared to commit the Chief to something the Executive had not yet had an opportunity to discuss as a group.

Member Legendre inquired about the variance in the figures given for the anticipated federal contribution. Deputy Chief Bevan explained that only the technological equipment itself would qualify for the funding, and not the aircraft.

Member Legendre referenced Toronto’s "Choppers for Coppers" initiative, in which partnerships with various groups have been formed for fundraising purposes. He asked whether this approach has been explored locally with the high tech sector. The Deputy Chief Bevan said he was aware of initiatives in Toronto and he indicated there are groups that are prepared to support a local initiative, but no solid figures are known yet.

Chair Kreling inquired whether approval in principle by the Board would be sufficient to seek out senior government assistance for the proposal. Deputy Chief Bevan said the wording of the recommendation will help the Service make its application and have funds committed should it decide to proceed.

Member Buckingham referred to the price quoted for purchase of an aircraft, and asked if the Service would be purchasing a used Cessna 182. The Deputy Chief explained the plane had been out of production since 1984, and confirmed the Service would be looking to purchase a second hand aircraft.

Speaking to her proposed Motion, Member Buckingham believed it would allow the Service to proceed, but savings would have to be found elsewhere within the budget in order to continue.

Chair Kreling suggested that, in order to clarify the Board’s intent, Member Buckingham consider amending her Motion to indicate approval in principle for exploring the acquisition of an aircraft for the Police Service. She agreed, adding an additional point to the beginning of her motion that stated the Board, "…concurs that air services are a valuable tool in providing police services…".

Member McCombie suggested that corporate sponsors be sought prior to the Board considering this item during its budget deliberations. The Deputy Chief suggested that if the Board endorsed the proposal in principle, the Service would be in a better position to negotiate these sponsorships. Chief Ford said he has contacted the Assistant Deputy Minister of Policing Services and there is great interest in a pilot project for a fixed wing operation. He added that up to $300,000 per pilot project has been provided for projects in London, Durham, York, Peel, Hamilton and Toronto.

Moved by E. Buckingham

CARRIED as amended

7. STATUS REPORT ON THE CAD/RMS IMPLEMENTATION

- Director General’s report dated 25 May 99

- Special edition of "Show Me" newsletter issued at the meeting

Steve Kanellakos, Director General of Administration, OCRPS, introduced Sebastian Cardarelli, Program Manager, CAD/RMS Project, and Constable Dylan Tansey, a team leader for a group involved in the selection, procurement and installation of lap top computers in police vehicles. He is currently engaged in training officers in the use of this new technology.

Mr. Cardarelli indicated two projects are currently underway: the installation of mobile workstations in police vehicles and the implementation of the new records management system. He noted both projects are in a good stage of development. Lap tops will be deployed in June 1999, and the databases from Nepean and from the Central Division have been combined into one central database. He said it is anticipated that the data conversion from the old Gloucester Police Service will be completed in the coming weeks.

Cst. Tansey provided the Board with an overview of the working environment inside a police vehicle. He explained the limitations of the old technology, compared with the features offered by the new Panasonic CF27 mobile data terminal (MDT). He stated the new MDT’s offer a bigger display area, increased memory, and are fully portable. He said ergonomic factors, as well as airbag safety regulations, have also been taken into consideration regarding installation of MDT’s and all other peripheral equipment in police vehicles to maintain full visibility for officers.

He noted the new technology will allow officers to remain in the community longer, as it will reduce the need to report occurrences at the station. He added that implementation begins on June 7^th, with six officers per day being trained and one vehicle per day being reconfigured, simultaneously. Cst. Tansey said another feature is the deployment of a new dedicated radio network in conjunction with Bell Mobility, ensuring that Ottawa-Carleton Police will have the best and fastest radio network available. Another feature of the system is ongoing user support provided mostly by other officers who can relate to the user group and address their concerns on a specific level.

In response to questions from Vice Chair Baskerville, Mr. Cardarelli confirmed there have been difficulties converting some of the Ontario Provincial Police records, and data from the Western division may also be difficult to convert. Responding to a question about security from Member McCombie, Mr. Cardarelli assured him the MDT’s were password-protected, and in the event that a police care was stolen, the link with the communications centre could be broken.

Vice Chair Baskerville thanked the presenters for their efforts.

RECEIVED

8. BUSINESS PLANNING PROCESS - ADEQUACY STANDARDS REGULATION

Member Legendre stated he would like to make some amendments to the report. He referenced Phase Three, which is described on page 12 of the agenda, and is entitled "Conducting Consultation". He stated he would like to add the words, "to the Board" at the end of the final sentence in the second paragraph. In the next paragraph outlining how the consultation will be conducted, he wanted it stressed that these will be board events.

Member Legendre referred to a public meeting held last year on the False Alarm Policy, pointing out that the public did not know they were speaking to board members. He believed the public were under the impression they were talking to staff, as they were the only people identified at the meeting. In his opinion, that was the wrong spin. The board is responsible for listening to what the public has to say and he did not want this to be missed in the upcoming consultation process.

Councillor Legendre also noted there had been a principal facilitator at the False Alarm Policy session who was not bilingual. The facilitator had a bilingual assistant, but he did not believe that was adequate. Member Legendre stated the Board should be looking for bilingual facilitators when the contract is issued, and he indicated he would be presenting a motion to that effect. His motion suggested that the word "Board" be inserted in point 4 of the Terms of Reference between "conduct" and "consultative sessions", and also that a sentence be added addressing the need for a bilingual facilitator. Member Legendre hoped his colleagues would support the motion and reiterated his belief that the board members’ role should be emphasized.

Member Buckingham concurred that when dealing with areas such as Centretown, Vanier and the east end of the Region there should be a bilingual facilitator. However, she questioned the need to have a bilingual facilitator in all 16 policing districts in the region in which public consultations will be held; for instance, in areas such as West Carleton, Goulbourn, Rideau Township. She expressed astonishment that there was no bilingual facilitator who would have indicated questions could be offered in either language in the consultation referenced by Member Legendre. Member Buckingham stated that whoever provides the service would likely have a team that included bilingual capabilities, or they would find someone specifically to handle the facilitation. She ended by noting there are still details to work out, but the Board needs to get moving on it.

In response to Member Buckingham’s comments, Member Legendre pointed out he had not expected different facilitators for different areas. It was his assumption that a facilitator or firm would be hired to do all of the larger public meetings and forums. Member Buckingham replied that, having done focus groups, she recognizes that a facilitator gets tired when the same question is addressed over and over again. It is not unusual to have more than one person do them.

Member Legendre also noted that recent statistics show there is a significant shift occurring in terms of where francophones live in Ottawa-Carleton, with more residing in Kanata, Nepean and the west end of the Region than in the past. Member Legendre reiterated that if one team/firm is hired, the Board has to make sure the person is bilingual.

Chair Kreling summarized the intent of the suggested changes to be that the meetings will be facilitated bilingually regardless of whether or not it is the same individual at each of the 16 meetings. Chair Kreling spoke to the proposed addition of the word "Board" on page 17, and pointed out that confusion should not be created about the information sessions and public meetings of the Board. He noted even Council and Committees of Council hire consultants to go out into the community for the purposes of public information sessions, which very few councillors attend. This may be a similar type of situation if there are going to be 16 meetings for the public, one in each of the districts. Chair Kreling thought it doubtful that there would be a quorum of the Board in attendance at each meeting. In fact, the consultants retained will be conducting the meeting upon the request of the Board.

There being no further discussion, the board considered the motions.

Moved by J. Legendre

CARRIED

Member Buckingham pointed out that the Board has not had the terms of reference reviewed by the procurement staff at the Region. She suggested they may recommend changes, and requested the Board’s authorization to accept any advice given as the process proceeds. However, the essence of the terms will remain as presented. There being no disagreement, the main motion was considered:

CARRIED as amended

9. RETENTION AND DESTRUCTION BY-LAW

WITHDRAWN

10. AWARD OF CONTRACT

FOR THE ACQUISITION OF RADIO EQUIPMENT

- Director General’s report dated 25 May 99

Councillor Legendre noted the report pertained to a contract extension of a financially significant amount. He asked whether consideration had been given to opening up the bidding process for new bidders.

Steve Kanellakos, Director General Administration, OCRPS, acknowledged the extension is a continuation of the arrangement the Service has with the current supplier. He explained the arrangement is one upon which the Service’s radio communications infrastructure is based. The Director General noted no other options were available for other dealers to supply the technology required.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board award a contract to Ericsson of Mississauga for the acquisition of radio equipment, for an amount not to exceed $565,000, not including shipping and taxes.

CARRIED

11. FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL POSITION REPORT

- Director General’s report dated 28 May 99

In reply to questions from Member Buckingham, Debra Frazer, Director of Financial Services, OCRPS, explained parking fine revenues had been received as hold-over revenues from municipalities and would not be a source of future revenue. She explained boarding up services referred to the boarding up of vacant or abandoned properties suspected of being crack houses, in which case it was felt safer to board up the properties.

Member Buckingham advanced the view that, with respect to court time/overtime costs, and notwithstanding the Board’s best efforts, a contingency fund is needed to even out these extraordinary pressures. She said she expected the organization to come in under budget, and that it was unacceptable for staff to be projecting, at this time, to be over a half-million dollars over-budget. Member Buckingham said she realized this will be difficult, but it is one of the challenges of providing municipal services.

Member Adam asked why the part of the legal budget dealing with disciplinary hearings, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Chief, appears in the Board’s budget as opposed to the Chief’s. Steve Kanellakos, Director General of Administration, OCRPS, indicated this was the result of consolidating the budgets of the three former police services at the time of amalgamation, and he pointed out it is within the Board’s purview to make changes to this arrangement, if it so desires.

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

RECEIVED

12. LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN FOR

SPECIAL OLYMPICS - REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION

Member Legendre said it was not clear from the report why the funds were required, and asked if funds were being requested of the Board’s budget, or whether the Board was authorizing the Service to spend this amount. Chair Kreling indicated the request is for a contribution from the Board to facilitate the participation of three members from the Service. In response to further questions from Member Legendre, Wendy Fedec, the Board’s Executive Director, clarified that the Board has set aside $10,000 in discretionary funding, and that this group has traditionally received support for this event.

Superintendent Peter Cuthbert explained the funds will help cover the costs of members travelling with the Torch Run caravan, as well as promotional costs and costs incurred by the "Olympians". He noted the caravan would also visit schools and that corporations would be contacted for sponsorships and funds to assist in the run.

CARRIED as amended

13. CORRESPONDENCE FROM AQUARIUM SERVICES

- Executive Director’s report dated 25 May 99 and attached

correspondence from Mr. Tom MacRae, Aquarium Services

Chair Kreling drew Board members’ attention to additional information and recommendations circulated under cover of a memo from the Executive Director dated 27 May 99.

Councillor Legendre said that, following the commandeering of his premises by Regional Police during the OC Transpo incident, the owner, Tom MacRae, was informed he might be eligible for compensation for lost business. The subsequent media coverage left the impression that Mr. MacRae wanted to profit from this tragedy. He was devastated by the reaction of his neighbours and business associates and has spent weeks trying to set the record straight.

The Councillor made reference to the fact that knowledge about the claim from Aquarium Services was wide-spread within the service and generally not well-received. He expressed dismay at this fact, inquiring how the information got out and pointing to the need to take serious action to ensure this kind of behaviour is not repeated. He suggested that the message be communicated within the Service that discretion is warranted and that behaviour of this kind is reprehensible. He also suggested the Board have a policy in place to recognize an honorarium for good community relations.

With respect to the proposed letter from Chief Ford, Councillor Legendre suggested the letter was a good first draft but needed to be more strongly worded, to send a clear message that Mr. MacRae did nothing wrong. In addition, he suggested the Service must try to correct the public’s wrongful perception of Mr. MacRae’s actions and make the correction very public.

Member Buckingham concurred that the subsequent events were unfortunate, but she would find it difficult to make it a standard policy that the Service provide compensation for lost sales, although she felt compensation should be provided for damages caused as a result of police activity in certain circumstances. She suggested Mr. MacRae could be honoured in a new category at the next awards ceremony. With respect to the Chief’s letter, Member Buckingham asked that alternate wording be found to replace "I am unable to comment on...", in the fourth paragraph of the proposed letter.

In response to Councillor Legendre’s question about how the information became public knowledge within the Service, Chief Ford pointed out that, in order for the Professional Standards Branch to investigate the occurrence, a number of conversations had to take place, and it was difficult to prevent information from getting out. He did not believe the actions of the Professional Standards Branch were reprehensible, as they were only performing their duties.

Chair Kreling said the events of the day, the associated misunderstandings and mis-communications, comments made by police officers and related factors all contributed to an impossible situation. He noted one side’s version could not be said to be more truthful than the other’s.

Councillor Legendre indicated he would support the proposed recommendations provided the wording of the letter was stronger in terms of an apology.

Chief Ford said such a letter would be drafted and would be sent under his signature.

Whereas, due to the unique circumstances surrounding the OC Transpo incident and the negative publicity received by the Aquarium Services Store arising from the claim;

- Executive Director’s report dated 26 May 99

Vice Chair Baskerville wanted to ensure there would be sufficient funds to allow Board members to attend the Big 12 meetings for the rest of the year. Wendy Fedec, the Board’s Executive Director, clarified there will be sufficient funds, since funding to attend Big 12 meetings is allocated from the Board’s Business Travel account, and not the Conference account.

Councillor Legendre asked that the Board deal with the matter of his attendance at the International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (IACOLE) Conference. He said he had attended the IACOLE conference in Seattle the previous year, and had found it useful. He noted that, for the first time, the conference is being held outside of North America, and he expressed the hope that international participation would be achieved. Member Legendre said he understood the current fiscal realities, but he thought making a decision about his attendance now could effect savings in air fares. He put forward a Motion calling for approval of his attendance at the IACOLE conference in principle, in order to allow reservations to be made and to be able to report better numbers to the Board.

Vice Chair Baskerville said that, having attended a past IACOLE conference, he found other seminars and workshops of greater value to the Board than the IACOLE conferences, although material might vary from year to year. He stressed the importance of the Board having to look carefully at where it puts its money. He felt Board members should have the opportunity to put in bids regarding where they want to go and that the requests should be examined afterwards.

Member Adam said he was appalled to think anybody on the Board would fly half-way around the world to attend a conference at the taxpayers’ expense.

Member Buckingham indicated she was interested in attending sessions on performance measurement, which she thought would be helpful, and she asked that information be circulated to the Board about any such sessions.

Councillor Legendre said he would argue that the IACOLE conference agenda is pertinent to the functions of the Board. He pointed out that attendance at international conferences is a responsibility Canadians have in the international community. He added Canada has an excellent reputation in civilian oversight of law enforcement and to attend only when events are held in North America is not a healthy picture. The Councillor said it was clear he would choose between attending the conferences referenced in the report and the IACOLE conference, which would require additional funding.

Member Buckingham proposed an amendment calling for a ceiling of $4,000 to be placed on what the Board will pay for Councillor Legendre to attend the various events, thus providing him with the flexibility to choose which conference he wished to attend.

CARRIED

CARRIED

(D. Adam dissenting)

15. LEGAL SERVICES: ORGANIZATION AND COST

- RMOC A/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer’s report dated 26 May 99

Chair Kreling introduced Mr. Douglas Cameron, Regional Solicitor.

Vice Chair Baskerville, having been assured that legal services will continue to be provided for collective bargaining in the same manner, said he had no problem approving the recommendations, as this allows the Board to carry on its present practice of using regional solicitors and/or other firms.

Member Buckingham asked whether the Regional Solicitor would report directly to the Board on matters that affect it. Mr. Cameron indicated this would be the case. Member Buckingham made reference to the 52 civil actions currently underway, and she inquired whether the Board would get a list of what these are. Mr. Cameron suggested the Board could have a session to find out the kinds of actions involved and afterwards receive regular updates. Member Buckingham proposed that the actions be listed by category, and that updates be provided every three to six months to give the Board a sense of the turnover.

Mr. Cameron confirmed for Councillor Legendre that the duties of Legal Services would also include areas of law related to the Police Services Act.

CARRIED

16. REVISED BOARD PROCEDURE BY-LAW & IN CAMERA MEETINGS

Councillor Legendre noted the staff report implies there will be two different types of meetings, public and in camera, whereas the Police Services Act speaks of one kind of meeting during which a matter could arise that must be discussed in camera. He felt this to be a better and simpler approach. He asked staff to comment.

Eric Johnston, A/Regional Solicitor, replied it was not the intent to have different types of meetings. He explained there would be an agenda, with some items that would be dealt with in camera, as decided by the Board. Mr. Johnston pointed out the Police Services Board is somewhat different from a municipal council, in that under the Police Services Act it is permissible for the Board to have an in camera meeting called for that purpose. The proposed by-law has been drafted such that it contemplates that, when an in camera meeting is called, there would first be a public session and a motion to move in camera.

In light of the comments from Mr. Johnston, Councillor Legendre suggested that Item 3 of the by-law (page 106) be amended to read "A resolution to consider a matter in camera shall be considered at a properly advertised public meeting prior to any discussion of the matter". He said this would then eliminate the need for sections (a) and (b) and would result in item 4 being simplified as well. Item 4 would then read (in part) "If a matter is deemed by a majority of the Board present and voting to be inappropriate subject matter for a closed meeting, the matter will be referred for public discussion...".

Chair Kreling explained this would not be possible (to refer rather than defer the item to the next meeting) because the item would not have been advertised if it was considered to be an in camera item at the time of the preparation of the agenda. He said the only way for the public to become aware of it would be to defer it to the next public meeting, at which time it would be listed on the public agenda. Mr. Johnston confirmed this.

Councillor Legendre asked if it would be possible to advertise an in camera item in a "generic" way, such that it would not give any specific information. Mr. Johnston advised that in doing so, the item would become so generic (e.g. labour relation matters, solicitor and client privilege or litigation) as to not achieve anything. He felt it would be better if, when the agenda is prepared, the originators of the items, in consultation with the Board Chair and Executive Director, decide what items should or should not be considered in camera. He noted the decision of whether or not to consider the item would ultimately be that of the Board’s (prior to going in camera) and each Board member will have had the benefit of receiving the confidential item prior to making a decision in open forum, as contemplated by the legislation.

Chair Kreling noted this particular issue was discussed at the time the Board gave instruction as to the drafting of the Procedure By-law.

Responding to further comments from Councillor Legendre, Mr. Johnston pointed out when the Board is considering matters on an in camera basis, there is the provision of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), that if a reference is made to the nature of the deliberations that have transpired on an in camera basis, there is a possibility of losing the exemption from disclosure provided in the legislation. He stressed the Board should be cognizant and careful about how it communicates or advertises the subject matter of in camera deliberations.

Councillor Legendre referenced point 27(1) (b) on page 106 of the report, and indicated he would like to add, "In doing the weighing, the Board would consider the wishes of the individual concerned". He pointed out the proposed wording is exactly as is contained in the Police Services Act; he felt his wording went beyond that and, if the affected individual was not concerned that the discussion occur in public, the Board could have the flexibility of recognizing that.

Mr. Johnston, addressing the Councillor’s proposed amendment, cautioned the Board against deviating from the provisions contained in the Act. He reminded the Board that a decision to go in camera must be tied directly to the legislative provisions, and advised it would be best not to introduce another factor into that process.

Councillor Legendre referenced page 96, item 9 and indicated his intent to move that another item be added to the agenda after "(d) Confirmation or Correction of Minutes", namely, "Matters Arising From the Minutes" and that the remaining items be re-numbered accordingly.

Chair Kreling asked for a legal opinion on the Councillor’s proposal, questioning whether this suggestion could be considered the same as "Inquiries", which already exists on the agenda. Mr. Johnston respectfully suggested this amendment not be made to the by-law and offered the following reasons. He noted it was standard practice for any deliberating body to review its deliberations and confirm what was said; the proposed addition to an agenda would provide the opportunity to once again debate, deliberate and perhaps conceivably re-decide matters that were dealt with at a prior meeting. The Regional Solicitor pointed out there are other avenues to achieve that purpose, namely, by means of a formal reconsideration of an item; by way of a request to reopen a matter when new information has come forward; or, by way of an inquiry.

Member Buckingham referenced item (h) in the Interpretation section of the by-law, which states "Executive Director means, unless otherwise determined by the Board, the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton". She felt it overly explicit to specifically name the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and suggested the Board might consider amending this to read "any person the Board has chosen to appoint to the position." In this way, should the Board choose to change who provides the service, the Procedures By-law would not have to change. Member Buckingham clarified she did not have any objection to the Clerk providing this service, however, should the Board ever choose to have someone else provide this service, this amendment would simplify the process.

Responding to Member Buckingham’s comments, Chair Kreling indicated the Board (by way of motion) chose to retain the services of the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to provide support to the Board. He explained the Regional Clerk was retained originally because of the continuity and flow of information and the resources available in the Clerk’s office. Chair Kreling stated he did not have any problem at all with the definition contained in the by-law and felt it was standard practice for police services boards.

Member Buckingham disagreed with the Chair that this practice was common to police boards (particularly the larger ones) and indicated she would be moving a motion to amend this item.

Mr. Johnston stated the point raised by Member Buckingham was valid: the executive director is whoever the Board decides it is going to be and he advised the wording change could be made.

Member Buckingham then questioned why the reference to the Chair sitting as an ex-officio member of all committees of the Board, with its accompanying right to attend and vote at committee meetings, had been taken out of the by-law. Chair Kreling stated all of the changes to the by-law came about as a result of discussions. He noted he (as the Chair) is specifically appointed to the Human Resources Committee and this was one reason why the portion referenced by Member Buckingham was removed. Chair Kreling indicated he would have no objection if Member Buckingham wished to move a motion to reinstate the original wording. Member Buckingham stated she was merely trying to obtain an understanding of the situation.

Referring to Section 9, "Order of Business", Member Buckingham questioned whether the Board would ever have a Confirming By-law (item (j)) or if it was something done primarily by Regional Council at their meetings. Mr. Johnston confirmed the Member was correct, explaining as the Board does not generally operate through the mode of by-laws, it would not be an essential item on the agenda. Member Buckingham felt the reference to "Confirming By-law" should therefore be removed.

Member Buckingham then referenced Section 30, "Inquiries", on page 107 of the agenda and noted it states that all inquiries must be submitted in writing. She felt this to be overly bureaucratic and asked staff to explain the reasoning behind it. Wendy Fedec, Executive Director, explained this same provision was found in the RMOC Procedure By-law and she felt it would be beneficial to staff in responding to Members inquiries, to have them in writing. Member Buckingham stated she would like to see this section removed.

The Board then considered the motions put forward.

Speaking to his motion to amend "Order of Business" by adding a subsection "Matters Arising from the Minutes", Councillor Legendre stated the intent of his motion was not as was stated previously by the A/Regional Solicitor (e.g. to reopen issues) but simply to receive updates on matters (e.g. an item or an inquiry) that had been raised at the previous meeting.

Moved by J. Legendre

LOST

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

YEAS: J. Legendre….1

Councillor Legendre then addressed his next motion to add the word "present" after the word "Board" in Section 27(5). He explained the wording as proposed suggests that a majority of all members of the Board would be required rather than a majority of the members present.

At Chair Kreling’s request, Mr. Johnston confirmed the intent was that a majority of all members of the Board would be required. He advised the rationale of the proposed wording was that should there be a decision to essentially change the thinking of the board regarding the in camera nature of an item, it should require a special majority (i.e. a majority of the whole Board - four members, regardless of the number of members present). He gave as an example a situation in which the Board enters an in camera session (pursuant to the legislation) and, if there are five members present (from the seven member Board), three members (as a majority of members present) could vote to resume in open session. With the exemption under MFIPPA at risk by moving to a public discussion, Mr. Johnston felt such a situation should require a special majority. Mr. Johnston stated this was not required under the Police Services Act, but rather was a matter to be decided by the Board.

Moved by J. Legendre

That Item 27 (5) be amended by adding the word "present" after the word "Board".

LOST

NAYS: E. Buckingham, J. McCombie and H. Kreling….3

YEAS: G. Baskerville and J. Legendre….2

Moved by E. Buckingham

(H. Kreling dissenting)

Moved by E. Buckingham

Moved by E. Buckingham

CARRIED

Moved by E. Buckingham

CARRIED

The Board then approved the report recommendations as amended.

CARRIED

CARRIED as amended

Vice Chair Baskerville advanced the view that more was involved with this process than simply saying the Professional Standards Branch would be disbanded. Because of the amount of internal discipline and material that needs to be handled by the Chief, there would be no saving of resources. He felt an independent body as envisaged in Recommendation 1 would impede the Chief’s ability to monitor officer behaviour and prevent him from seeing emerging patterns that could only be recognized locally.

Councillor Legendre reminded the Board this matter stemmed from media coverage of a suggestion by the Chief that the Province might want to consider the establishment of an independent body. He noted the Ontario Public Complaints Commission, which was disbanded by the current provincial government, had had a large backlog, however he also noted its main asset was its independence of any police service. Councillor Legendre added there is a credibility gap anytime a complaint is investigated by the organization the complainant finds issue with. He asked if the Chief would comment on the media coverage that generated the Motion.

Chief Ford said that at the time he made the suggestion, municipalities were getting funding grants from the Province. Since that time, all policing grants had been withdrawn and the Chief did not believe the Province was interested in the idea. Councillor Legendre indicated an independent investigative body would only come about if other Boards across the Province cooperated. He suggested that the Board accept the principal notion and circulate the Motion to other Boards as a way to pressure the Province. The Councillor felt the issue of an independent body will be an ongoing sore point until the Province sorts out the matter, and he believed this was a good way of getting the process started.

Responding to a suggestion from Chief Ford about forwarding the Motion to the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards (OAPSB), Vice Chair Baskerville, speaking as a Director of the organization, said he could bring the matter to a Board of Directors’ meeting in June. He noted, however, that the current government has been reducing the number of agencies and he did not believe they would support the idea of creating another one.

Councillor Legendre moved that the Motion be amended, to be forwarded to the OAPSB and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) for their consideration and support. Member Buckingham expressed difficulty in supporting the amendment, as the intent of Part 5 of the Act is to encourage informal resolution of disputes and creating an independent body to handle complaints would negate this intent.

Member McCombie agreed with Member Buckingham’s view.

18. COMMENDATION LETTERS (SINCE LAST MEETING)

RECEIVED

Inspector Beechey gave an update to the report he had presented at the Board’s 26 Apr 99 meeting. He reported that in relation to the incidents of arson and bomb threats received at South Carleton High School, three young offenders had been charged in relation to the arson, and one of the three had additionally been charged with uttering the bomb threat. Insp. Beechey also noted that the Transportation Safety Board had been performing a study of bus collisions, and had attended the site of a recent school bus collision north of Kanata. He hoped the information they had gathered would be of help. In conclusion, Inspector Beechey said the OPP were participating in the Region’s and OCRPS’s Road Safety Challenge, and said the event was successful. He noted the OPP were also performing Reducing Impaired Driving Everywhere (RIDE) programs and participating in school visits.

Chief Ford reported on the following items:

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

RECEIVED

Due to the lateness of the hour (11:10 p.m.) the Chair suggested that a motion be put forward recommending that the meeting be adjourned, with the remaining items (Other Business, Inquiries, and the Consideration of a Motion to Move In Camera) to be deferred until the meeting in Nepean on 7 June 1999. The Board concurred.

As Chief Ford would not be present at the meeting on 7 June 1999, he distributed material related to the In Camera Item to members of the Board, for their consideration at the next meeting.

That the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services Board adjourn the public portion of its meeting to move In Camera to discuss Confidential Item 1 pertaining to a personnel matter, in accordance with Section 35(4)(b) of the Police Services Act.

DEFERRED

Executive Director Chair