(This
column was published in the North
Shore News on
Nov. 11, 1998)
Local
crime-fighting funding battle looms
By Leo Knight
AS
things are shaping up in Vancouver, the battle lines are being
drawn and as we get ready for round one, we can see the media
flocking around for what promises to be a very entertaining
contest.
On
one side, is the Vancouver mayor and the Vancouver Police
Department (VPD) Chief Constable; on the other, the police board
and the Vancouver Police Union.
At
stake are several careers. Not the least of which is that of
Chief Constable Bruce Chambers. A loss in this "game"
could well send him to the sidelines for the duration.
But,
depending on how the "game" progresses, there is also
the future of some of the players -- some pretenders to the
throne, while others betting their prospects on which of the
survivors win the big prize.
Last
week we discussed the object of the "game." The mayor
and the chief have come up with a plan for 40 additional
officers to be deployed in the Downtown Eastside to combat the
myriad evils lurking on the meanest streets in this country.
Council
approved a 1% tax increase to fund the idea, which involves a
one time infusion of $3.6 million.
While
this idea is, on the surface at least, good, the problem arises
when the numbers are crunched. Instead of clearly defined
answers, one is left with a collection of confusing questions as
we discussed last week.
The
police board reacted with a 6-1 vote against the plan. In itself
this seems inherently confusing. A government appointed board
refusing an increase in manpower and money? Blasphemy!
This
goes against the grain of every bureaucrat who's ever tried to
build an empire.
So,
what's really behind the reluctance of the board to take
council's lolly?
Chambers
came to Vancouver via the top job in Thunder Bay, Ontario. This
was the first time in anyone's memory that the chief's job went
to anyone from outside the department.
Undoubtedly,
Chambers had an uphill battle to gain the confidence of his new
subordinates. Equally, the VPD members and officers had to prove
themselves to an unfamiliar chief.
But,
right from the get-go, things started to go awry on both sides.
What was missing was some very basic fence and team building.
Instead, egos and politics seemed to take control of even the
most basic of daily functions in the police department.
When
Chambers marched at the head of the annual Gay Pride parade but
neglected to attend the department's retirement dinner,
honouring those police officers leaving after dedicating their
working lives to the service of the city, it was perceived as a
major slap in the face to the rank and file.
Then
came a situation where Chambers seemingly threw due process of
law out his seventh floor window and three officers were charged
criminally with assault based on the most confusing and
conflicting of evidence.
The
chief constable then pushed ahead with his reorganization of the
department with a "come hell or high water" attitude.
The reorganization cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in what
many officers claim is wasted taxpayers' money which should have
been spent on operational requirements to serve the public
better.
Now
there's this new plan, the one the police board can't seem to
support.
While
much of the dissatisfaction with the chief constable is internal
and typically, any police department doesn't like to air its
dirty laundry in public, the union executive took the
unprecedented step a month ago of conducting a series of
interviews with many members of the police department.
Following
the interviews, the executive had a two-day retreat to assess
and compile all the relevant information.
Union
president Bob Rich was preparing to make a presentation to
council, outlining all the concerns. But, just before he made
his treatise, he was handed a copy of the new plan.
That
was it. No consultation. Nothing more than "here you
go."
Just
before the police board convened to consider the plan, Rich and
other members of his executive hosted the police board at a
dinner in the union offices. It was there the concerns about the
problems in the department were laid out chapter and verse.
The
meeting was scheduled prior to the three-year plan being tabled,
however, it became a significant part of the discussion.
Hence,
when the police board meeting took place, Mayor Owen was the
sole supporting vote and the battle lines were clearly drawn.
Now
none of this has anything really to do with the aim of the plan
-- to focus on the problems of the "skids."
Unfortunately that idea, however noble, is merely now a pawn in
the bigger "game."
You
see, to get council's support for the plan, the chief had to
agree to a three-year freeze on increased budgets for the
department. No matter what, the arrangement clearly states,
"The police board will not be requesting additional
resources from council during the three years of the
agreement."
With
that, the chief agreed to handcuffing the cops for a three-year
period regardless of what might change in that time and without
consulting the police board.
But
wait. Doesn't the current collective bargaining agreement expire
during that time? You bet. On Dec. 31, 1999. Considering there
will be still two years to go on the expenditure freeze at that
point, it looks as though the chief has already given away any
potential pay increment for the department long before the union
had even considered its opening negotiating position.
Now
this has been denied by city hall, but the rank and file is very
skeptical.
For
the captain of a ship already on the verge of mutiny, I suspect
that may turn out to be a fatal mistake.
Stay tuned.
-30-