|
Ottawa
Police Services Board
Minutes 21
Monday,
25 July 2016, 4:00 p.m.
Champlain
Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa
|
Present: Councillor E. El-Chantiry
(Chair), J.
Durrell (Vice Chair), C. Nicholson, L.A. Smallwood, Councillor T. Tierney, S.
Valiquet
Regrets: Councillor J. Harder
CEREMONIAL ACTIVITIES / ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair El-Chantiry welcomed Mr. David Tilley, Police
Services Advisor, Zone 2, and Mr. Graham White, Police Services Advisor, North
Zone, to the meeting.
CONFIRMATION OF
AGENDA
DECLARATIONS
OF INTEREST
There were no
declarations of interest.
INQUIRIES
Member Smallwood made the following
inquiries and requested that a response be provided at the next meeting:
1)
Supplementary
Training
To what extent does the police service offer supplementary
training in addition to that which our members receive at the Ontario Police
College and as a matter of policy, could additional emphasis be given to
de-escalation techniques in circumstances where there is no immediate threat to
officers or members of the public.
2)
When
and under what circumstances can our police service issue statements to the
media that may not be accurate.
COMMITTEE
MEETINGS: REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE CHAIRS & MINUTES
- Human Resources
Committee minutes – 08 June 2016
-
Policy
& Governance Committee minutes - 03 June 2016
-
Policy
& Governance Committee minutes - 20 June 2016
Chair El-Chantiry reported on the Human Resources
Committee held on 08 June 2016 and Member Nicholson reported on the Policy
& Governance Committee meetings held on June 03 and June 20, 2016.
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board receive these reports for information.
RECEIVED
ITEMS OF BUSINESS
1.
CHIEF’S VERBAL
REPORT
Chief Bordeleau reported on the following items (A
copy of the Chief’s verbal report is available online at ottawapoliceboard.ca):
·
Incident in
Hintonburg
·
Canada
Run - Hells Angels
·
Apprehension
of US Fugitive
·
Winthrop
Private Homicide
·
Gill
Homicide Verdict
·
Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police
·
Supt.
Uday Jaswal.
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
2.
BOARD
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Executive Director’s report
That the Ottawa Police Services Board
approve the appointments of L.A. Smallwood to the Finance & Audit
Committee, and T. Tierney to the Complaints Committee.
CARRIED
3.
CANADIAN
ASSOCIATION OF POLICE GOVERNANCE: NOTICE OF 2016 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING &
RESOLUTIONS
Executive Director’s report
That the Ottawa Police
Services Board receive for information the Notice of Annual General Meeting and
the Resolutions to be considered at the 2016 Canadian Association of Police
Governance Annual Conference.
RECEIVED
4.
SERVICE
INITIATIVE QUARTERLY UPDATE
Deputy
Chief Skinner was accompanied by A/Superintendent M. Ford, A/Inspector R.
Drummond and Ms. J. Wright, Project Manager to present the Service Initiative (SI)
update. (A copy of presentation will be kept on file with the Board’s
Executive Director.)
After
the presentation, the following individuals addressed the Board:
Councillor
K. Egli, Ward
9, Knoxdale-Merivale - (A copy of the submission is attached.)
Responding
to comments, D/C Skinner explained that community policing is at the heart of
the way the OPS does business and that is not going to change. The fact that
one person is not assigned to a community police office is not going to change
the ability to respond. The Ottawa Police Strategic Operations Centre (OPSOC)
will provide the ability to be more strategic about realigning and provide a
gateway for information that comes from the community.
D/C
Skinner indicated that the Councillor’s suggestion to have the Board involved
in the process of selecting individuals for the advisory committee and
developing the terms of reference would not be a problem. The composition of
the committee will be very diverse as it must represent urban, suburban, and
rural areas as well as neighbourhood associations and BIAs. The composition may
change as the issues change.
The
Deputy Chief further explained that community policing will be similarly
modeled to school resource officers. The city is divided into 108
neighbourhoods that have been brought together into sectors. Each sector will
have a team of officers from both a front line and a community safety service
perspective. Officers will be responding in a team environment with a community
police officer who is responsible for the neighbourhood either in a primary or
secondary role based on the needs of the community.
Following
the presentation and discussion, Member Valiquet proposed the following which
the Board endorsed as a direction to staff:
That the Board be involved in
developing and approving the terms of reference for the Service Initiative
Advisory Committee and in the selection process and approval of the advisory
committee members.
Ms. C. Parrott, Hintonburg Community
Association – (A copy of the submission is attached.)
Mr. Awad Loubani, Co-Chair, COMPAC – (A copy of the submission is
attached.)
Ms. L. Marleau,
Crime Prevention Vanier – (A
copy of the submission is attached.)
After
hearing from the public delegations a discussion ensued and points of
clarification were made.
Member
Nicholson noted that he has heard from numerous community members who feel
these changes are counter intuitive. He emphasized one key area that will
require a measurement tool will be the building of relationships and trust
within the community. He thinks the program evaluation framework needs to be
developed quickly, with the advisory committee weighing in. He believes it’s
vital to have a tool that will quickly measure successes and provide direction
for corrective action.
Chair
El-Chantiry thanked D/C Skinner for championing this workload and applauded the
changes that have been made after hearing from members of the public. The
Board needs to be kept up to date on the progress being made.
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board receive
this report for information.
RECEIVED
5.
REPORT
ON 2016-2018 BUSINESS PLAN
That the Ottawa Police Services Board
receive this report and online version for information.
RECEIVED
6.
FINANCIAL
STATUS REPORT: SECOND QUARTER 2016
Chief’s report
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
7.
PERFORMANCE
REPORT: SECOND QUARTER 2016
Chief’s report
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
8.
WORKFORCE
MANAGEMENT REPORT: SECOND QUARTER 2016
Chief’s report
That the Ottawa Police
Services Board:
1. Approve the appointment of the sworn officers identified in Document
B; and
CARRIED
2.
Receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
9.
COMPLAINTS
REPORT, PART V – POLICE SERVICES ACT: SECOND QUARTER 2016
Chief’s report
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
10. LEGAL SERVICES STATUS
REPORT: SECOND QUARTER 2016
Board Solicitor’s report
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
11. BOARD MONITORING REQUIREMENTS STATUS
REPORT: SECOND QUARTER 2016
Chief’s report
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
12. OUTSTANDING BOARD INQUIRIES &
MOTIONS: JULY 2016
Executive Director’s
report
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
13. LETTERS OF COMMENDATION
That
the Ottawa Police Services Board receive this report for information.
RECEIVED
OTHER
BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO MOVE IN
CAMERA
Moved by L.
A. Smallwood
That the Ottawa Police
Services Board adjourn the public portion of its meeting to move In Camera to
discuss confidential items pertaining to legal and personnel matters, in
accordance with Section 35(4)(b) of the Police Services Act.
CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
(original signed by) (original
signed by)
____________________________ _____________________________
W. Fedec E.
El-Chantiry
Executive Director Chair
Document 1 – Councillor K. Egli
1) Thank you for the opportunity to speak
this afternoon. I have a lot of respect for the job that our police do and
appreciate the current budgetary and efficiency issues.
2) However, I came tonight with a message
from my residents. I have read the report, attended several consultations, met
with Deputy Chief Skinner and heard extensively from my residents on the issue
of community police officers.
3) My residents are very happy with the
current community policing model. They see the proposed changes as a
significant misstep on behalf of the department.
4) The report recommends a one third
reduction in the number of officers, and a more general deployment model to be
put in their place.
5) If I read the report correctly, the
total savings projected are five million dollars over three years. How much of
this is attributed to community police officer changes is not clear.
6) It is ok to float ideas for cost
savings but you also should respond to community concerns and feedback about
these ideas.
7) Here are some samples of what my
community has said to me:“In our view, the current model supports the needs of
our neighbourhood of 1,850 households. Further on the proposed changes say:
‘From an administrative point of view, this is maybe desirable. From a
neighbourhood point of view, this statement does not acknowledge the value of
permanence and relationships offered/achieved through the community policing
model.’”
8) Another community states: “We are
concerned that the police are switching from a proactive/preventative crime
initiative to the reactive approach.”
9) In other words, I am going to suggest
that this may be a pennywise but pound foolish proposal.
10) In addition to the community concern,
based on some research I have done, this approach is not necessarily in sync
with other jurisdictions’ best practices. For example, in Hamilton, each ward
is given a specific officer who is directly and deeply involved with the
community.
11) Further, please be aware that I
believe the ‘single point of contact’ referenced in the report is not what the
community means. The Ottawa Police Service believes it is a supervisory officer
(sergeant) that will deploy resources as he/she sees fit. The community, based
on the consultations that I attended, means the community police officer.
12) I understand this report is for
information purposes and decisions have already been made. But let me stress
that it is difficult to measure the good that community police officers do but,
and as I say it I hope that I am wrong, it will be easier to see the negative
impacts that this community policing void will create.
13) I urge the Board to find a way to
revisit this decision. Failing this, I would urge you to monitor the effects of
these proposed changes closely. An advisory committee is proposed and this may
be a way to stay on top of this potentially bad decision.
14) I believe that great care must be
taken in choosing this advisory committee. It should be representative of our
diverse communities and stakeholders. Rural, urban, and suburban
representatives should be appointed. Finally, might I suggest that, as part of
your oversight responsibility, the Police Services Board have a role in
choosing the members of the advisory committee.
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC ASSOCIATION COMMUNAUTAIRE INC
1064 RUE WELLINGTON ST
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, K1Y 2Y3
A.
General
comments
COMPAC
community members understand that the Ottawa Police Service needs to develop a
new model for deployment in order to meet the challenges of a limited budget
and expanding demands on police services. However, COMPAC strongly recommends
that in this process community policing be strengthened and made to be more
efficient and effective.
B.
Community
Policing Officers
In
our opinion, embedding the Community Police Officers (CPOs) in the new
frontline deployment structure is regressive measure as far as community
policing has been a solid basis for building community trust in OPS. The
following are aspects of community policing that are important for COMPAC
community members and that should be made more efficient and effective in the
new deployment model and to mitigate the risk of them being eliminated or at
best minimized:
1.
CPOs
have built strong enough relationships so community members feel safer to
report incidents to police.
2.
CPOs
have been focusing on building relationships building and trust building not
just enforcement.
3.
CPOs
have been interacting with many members of a community help the police members
have opportunity to understand the complexity of situations where why
individuals may become criminalized (no longer just seeing people as “Bad
Guys”). This interaction helps Police members get to really know the
intricacies understand the inner workings of their communities which is
important for both community-building and crime prevention.
4.
CPOs
have been working with local service providers to support social and community
development initiatives that target the risk factors associated with crime and
victimization.
5.
CPOs
provide formal and informal public education to community members about
everything including police procedure, “Make the Right Call”, Partner Assault,
Elder Abuse, Youth Internet Safety, etc.
6.
CPOs
use “soft skills” like non-violent communication, conflict resolution,
mediation to address community concerns.
7.
CPOs
follow up with individuals and communities impacted by criminal incidents in
order to provide updates and offer supports (i.e. Victim Services).
8.
CPOs
provide positive role models of police which encourages more community members
to consider policing as a career.
9.
CPOs
interact with public in a “casual”, accessible, and less time-constrained
manner, which allows for more easy relationship building and trust building.
10. Presence
of CPOs in community helps to reduce the fear of retaliation felt by those who
have reported criminal activity to police
11. Police
community engagement improves community’s image of policing (cited as reason
why one member joined COMPAC and another became interested in becoming a police
officer)
C.
Impact
of New Deployment Model on Community Policing
1.
COMPAC
Community members welcome the suggestion made at community consultations that
all OPS Patrol officers will now receive the same level of training as
Community/Neighbourhood Police officers so that they become more competent and
empathetic in their interactions with the public and more able to take on the
functions of Community/Neighbourhood police in areas outside of the “108
Priority Neighbourhoods” identified. However, COMPAC community members are concerned that with
the loss of specialized community police centres and community police officers,
there will be fewer opportunities for the type of casual interactions with
police officers which require time but are necessary for relationship building
and trust-building between police and community.
2.
COMPAC
wants to see the positions of School Resource Officers (SROs) and CPOs
maintained and improved through focused community consultations and
partnerships aimed at ensuring these positions are more efficient and effective
for both police and the communities they serve.
3.
COMPAC
also is concerned that the new deployment model might affect the police’s
ability to be culturally competent when engaging with indigenous (First
Nations, Metis, Inuit), racialized, and religious minority communities. COMPAC
community members have often worked with police officers from various units to
do culturally competent presentations within their respective communities. For
example, arranging for a Haitian Canadian police officer to deliver a
presentation on the police complaints process to members of the Haitian
community, or a Sikh police officer to deliver a presentation on Elder Fraud in
Punjabi to Sikh seniors, or a Somali police officer to delivering a
presentation on reporting crime to OPS for a group of Somali youth.
These particular officers were not in positions at the
time where any of this was part of their mandate, but their supervisor’s
allowed them to participate in these important activities within their
respective communities. COMPAC community members hope that officers will still
be free to do community engagement work that may not be within their assigned
job description but which is critical for relationship building and trust
building with indigenous, racialized, and religious minority communities. This
work should be seen as important police work and not something frivolous,
dispensable, or “soft”.
4.
COMPAC
community members are also concerned about the impact of the new deployment
model on police morale. Poor police morale can have a negative impact on
community-police relations. COMPAC community members hope that the SI is
prioritizing boosting police morale as crucial to making the OPS more efficient
and effective.
D.
Concerns
with SI Community Consultation Process
1.
OPS
did not present the current model of deployment alongside the new model
proposed so consultation participants were unable to assess whether this new
model was more cost-effective and efficient than the current model. Even to
date, it is very difficult to understand the effects of the proposed changes as
there was little information on the current method of deployment vs the
proposed method of deployment. How can we truly judge what is here and the
changes proposed if we don't know exactly what is changing?
2.
Although
making every police member a CPO is a noble objective, the concern is that
responding to calls for service will take priority over the community policing,
i.e., connecting and building long-term relationships, knowing the key players
in communities, attending community meetings. The new SI doesn’t address that,
especially the ‘how’.
3.
Consultation
process seemed rushed. Consultations COMPAC Community members attended did not
have many indigenous (First Nations, Metis, Inuit) or racialized community
members present. Opportunities for future community consultations on more
specific aspects of community policing were not proposed at the consultation.
Accordingly, there should have been more consultations across the city over a
longer period of time.
4.
Consultation
participants felt that they were presented with a “done deal” which was going
to happen whether they approved of it or not.
5.
Concern
that community members’ opposition to the proposed changes was not properly
recorded by facilitators.
6.
Lack
of representation at consultations of residents of the “108 Priority
Neighbourhoods” identified by D/C Skinner; hearing from service providers who
work in these neighbourhoods is not the same as hearing directly from
residents.
7.
Unclear
to consultation participants how their feedback will be used and what the next
steps in the implementation of the new deployment model are.
E.
Recommendations
for the Service Initiative Team Moving Forward
1.
SI
should emulate the solution used by the Traffic Stop Team by creating an
advisory committee consisting of 5-6 OPS members and 4-5 COMPAC members to
review on periodic basis the progress of the SI project.
2.
OPS
should work with COMPAC and community health and resource centres to conduct
consultations within the 108 priority neighbourhoods to determine the
objectives of community policing within these areas in order to make it more
efficient and effective for both the police and these communities.
3.
Efforts
need to be made to ensure that police engagement in priority neighbourhoods are
aimed at trust-building and relationship-building so communities do not feel
targeted, stigmatized, or over-policed.
4.
Specific
focus groups should be organized with indigenous and racialized particularly
those new to Ottawa (i.e. Inuit community) or new to Canada (immigrants and
refugees), with the support of COMPAC community members and service providers,
in order to get their feedback on the best ways to ensure that the new
deployment model’s approach to community policing addresses their needs
efficiently and effectively.
5.
The
SI Team should make regular presentations to COMPAC where SI team members ask
for COMPAC community members’ advice on how to effectively and efficiently
engage, consult, and communicate with their respective communities about the
SI.
- I thanked the OPS, specifically
DC Jill Skinner and her team, for how well the public consultations were
presented, for preparing an outcome document (as requested by
participants), and for continuing to involve key stakeholders moving
forward. I found the document comprehensive and reflective of what I
heard at the two consultations I attended.
- The SI Update provided more
clarity than what was previously available - though there is still some
aspects that require clarification such as the criteria that will be used
to determine 'high priority areas' and the selection process for
the 'community advisory committee'.
- I agreed with the concerns
mentioned by previous presenters that the SI appears to be more
reactive to crime than proactive (crime prevention) and that residents are
not apt to report online or by phone suspicious behaviours,
prostitution-related activities, problem addresses, drug-related
activities - where there is no actual crime witnessed or committed.
- I reiterated the importance of
Community Police Officers (CPOs) and having 'one point of contact' - which
I view as one and the same. CPOs allow for a connectivity,
continuity, and trust building between residents and the OPS; CPOs
attend community meetings and events; a 'single point of contact'
or CPO understands the neighbourhood, gathers intelligence not
reflected in online/telephone reporting (data), reports to the community
on issues related to criminal activity and new crime trends, OPS
initiatives/tools/events; feedback or updates on concerns raised at
previous meetings; etc.
- I appreciated the intent to
remove silos within OPS. In Vanier, the CPO is not informed
that a crime has been reported to OPS so, in effect, a
resident needs to report a concern twice - once via
online/telephone & once to our CPO in the event that he/she may want
to follow-up. Making information more readily available to CPOs
would be a great benefit.
- I appreciated the focus on road
safety and traffic enforcement and urged the OPS to ensure that
sufficient resources are allocated to what is acknowledged as the #1
safety concerned of Ottawa residents.
- I was happy to read that the SI
will increase the presence of uniformed officers and urged the OPS to bring
more foot patrol on Vanier's main streets.
- I advocated for crime trend dada
specific to communities as oppose to by Ward (as is currently available)
or by the newly defined OPS "sectors". Community
groups and CPOs need crime trend stats that properly reflect the
happenings in the neighbourhood so that we may put in place safeguards and
tailor our crime prevention approach accordingly.
- I wholeheartedly endorsed the
intent of the OPS to implement 'cross-over/knowledge transfer'
from one officer to another and for involving the community in the
training of a new CPO. I gave the example of our CPO leaving with
less than a week's notice and the position remaining vacant for 3
months.
- I reiterated the importance of
the CPO in terms of OPS volunteer recruitment & training, the
Neighbourhood Watch Program, CPTED audits and training, and the
Multi-Stakeholders' Approach to Problem Addresses.
- I cautioned the PSB on the use of
the term 'High Priority Area' as to not inadvertently reinforce the
current stigma of some 'vulnerable' communities - particularly when using
the term with the media given that it is often the culprit of stigmatizing
areas it deems to be 'crime prone'.
- Given the 'push' to use online
reporting (and using that information to realign OPS priorities), I
suggested that the OPS online tool be reviewed to make it shorter
& more user friendly.
- And lastly, I encouraged OPS to
market/promote their new way of doing business to that it is well
understood by residents.