Police commission needs to display more transparency
Darryl Raymaker
April 29, 2005
Re: Other Voices: "Chief mustn't use tactics of the strongman," April 26.
The National Post's editorial that appeared in the Herald sets out some of the serious charges that have beset the Calgary Police Service recently. It was also critical of the actions of Chief Jack Beaton respecting a raid on a CPS civilian employee to seize a laptop computer alleged to have been the source of a website attack against management of the service.
I served both as a member of the police commission and as chairman in the late '80s and early '90s. Through those years, I had the opportunity of working with Beaton, who was then an inspector. He always impressed me in those days, as he does now, as being a fine policeman, public servant and leader of the men and women of the service.
However, as the editorial points out, it appears not all is well. The allegations of improper conduct of certain members are worrisome.
In dealing with these concerns, the police commission would do well to look into its own ways of doing business. It is a public body whose members are appointed by city council. Its responsibilities include the setting of policies and budgets for the police service, instructing the chief as to policing priorities and overseeing the activities of the whole service.
In other words, the police service, through the chief and his staff, is accountable to the public through the police commission.
Unfortunately, neither the service nor the commission is publicly accountable. All business meetings are conducted in private. The police service's operating budget is upwards of $200 million a year of taxpayers' money -- the most expensive department in the city -- and there is no public accountability whatsoever (save for minor and cursory attention given to the budgetary requests made annually to city council). This is quite unlike any other city department.
This sad state of affairs was not always the case. Up until the early '90s, the commission would meet twice a month alternating with private and public meetings.
Private meetings would be held to deal with extremely sensitive subjects such as personnel issues or issues arising out of operations. Public meetings would be held to debate and transact meaningful business -- the purchase of equipment (e.g. guns, helicopters), employment policies (e.g. hiring of women and minorities), policy changes (e.g. SWAT, search and seizure, hot pursuit), and some policy issues arising out of operations.
Succeeding commissions, with the tacit consent and encouragement of council, eroded this process of openness. The prevailing and misguided view was that it was somehow harmful to the police and the citizens, if there was public debate of policing issues.
In other words, public accountability and transparency were not in the interests of good policing. Indeed, it's been reported that even asking tough questions of the police at the private commission meetings was frowned upon by the commission's power wielders, and in at least one case, a knowledgeable commission member who committed that offence was not reappointed by council.
In the wake of the corporate scandals of recent history, good governance has become synonymous with accountability and transparency in the private sector.
Rules have been set by governments and corporations alike to ensure this process becomes a part of western corporate culture. In the public sector, governments are requiring their Crown corporations and departments to adopt similar standards. There is no reason whatsoever why the police commission should be excluded.
How does this fit in with the allegations against the service? Simply, with more public accountability and transparency in the activities of the commission, there is a greater incentive to stay within the boundaries of acceptable conduct on the part of the members of the police service.
It is the spectre of exposure of wrongdoing through accountability and the dire consequences that follow, that is the solution to the excesses of the corporate world.
It is to be hoped that city council and the police commission will see things this way and that the commission returns to conducting police business in public where it belongs.
© Calgary Herald 2005