Corporation of the Town of Wallaceburg v. Board of Commissioners of Police for the Town of Wallaceburg, 1990 ONCPC 3901

Citation: 1990 ONCPC 3901

Applicant

Respondent

Presiding Members:

W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman

Frank Marc D'Andrea, Member

Appearances:

Councillor R. McNeil

Mr. Sheldon Parsons, Town Clerk

Dr. Jack R. Slaney, Chair Chief Delvyn R. Lunn Deputy Chief Ken Robb

John Judson, Solicitor for the Board

Hearing Date: Tuesday, July 3l, l990

Reasons for Decision

This is an application by the Town of Wallaceburg pursuant to Section l4(3) of the Police Act. That section provides:

"(3) Where the Council does not agree with the Board on the estimates or on the adequacy of the number of members of the police force or the accommodation, arms, equipment or other things for the use and maintenance of the force, the Commission shall determine the question after a hearing."

The budget proposal of the Board was presented to Council in the normal course and following protracted negotiations and discussion it has been impossible to resolve the differences. The Town has succeeded in controlling the budgets of other departments to an increase of approximately 2 per cent. The Board's proposal amounts to an increase of approximately 11.1 per cent. This is somewhat misleading, however, because $36,500.00 of that (approximately 2.2 per cent) is the result of motor vehicle purchases scheduled for the previous fiscal year

having been delayed in order to reduce last year's budget.

The burden of the Town's submission is that the cost of the civic administration in Wallaceburg is approaching a point at which tax increases are likely to have a serious negative impact. Wallaceburg has a population of something over ll,000 people, a capital debt of approximately $7,000,000.00, and is facing an increase in the capital debt of approximately $l0,000,000.00 in the near term.

The budget proposal put forward by the Board is approximately

$l,680,000.00. The Town is suggesting a reduction of $80,000.00.

We were impressed by the presentation of Mr. McNeil and the obviously serious efforts being made by members of Town Council to control the expenditure of taxpayers money. That having been said, however, it is the responsibility of the Ontario Police Commission in such applications to ensure that the Board is able to fulfill the Town's responsibility for maintaining an adequate police force in accordance with the police needs of the municipality pursuant to Section 2 of the Police Act.

The position put forward by Mr. McNeil and Mr. Parsons is a very reasonable one. They concede that the police force is doing an excellent job as is indicated in a recent work load study done by the Policing Services Division of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. That study indicates that Wallaceburg, as compared with other municipalities of approximately the same size, has a relatively high crime rate and a relatively low, or at least moderate, per capita cost for police services.

In seeking to obtain a saving of $80,000.00 Mr. McNeil concedes that since we are well into the fiscal year it is not reasonable to achieve such a saving within the current budget. What the Town is seeking is an overall reduction that will achieve a saving of $80,000.00 per annum. To achieve this saving the Town has made three recommendations to us.

The first suggestion is that the marine and park patrol program be altered to achieve a saving of $l2,338.00. The Town owns an outboard motor boat for purposes of patrol in the navigable waters within the Town limits. This patrol, we are told, began as a Red Cross safety exercise and was staffed initially by students. At the present time the boat's crew is composed of one constable and one summer student. The amount of $l2,338.00 is the amount budgeted to pay for the student and to pay overtime costs for the police officer. The boat is used l6 hours per week during the tourist season. Mr. Parsons argues that by re-deploying the staff of the police force that the boat could be operated by two police officers

during their regular tour of duty and that would save the additional cost of the student and the additional cost of overtime. Town Council does not want the marine and park patrol program cancelled however. It is conceded that this is a valuable and worthwhile service to the community.

As we will discuss later, the operational complement of the police force is already short by one constable. The work load study referred to above clearly indicates that the operational branch of the force is fully and completely occupied. Thus to provide staff for the marine and park patrol as suggested by the Town would seriously deplete the ability of the police force to respond to calls from the public for service. The cost involved is quite reasonable and the people of Wallaceburg are getting very good value for their money with respect to this patrol.

We find that the force cannot reasonably comply with this suggestion

from Council.

The second suggestion put before us on behalf of the Council of the Town of Wallaceburg is with respect to a fifth communicator who was hired last Fall. The Town argues that the communication function of the force had been provided by four communicators and that a fifth is not necessary. In the past when a communicator has been absent it has been possible for a police officer to substitute.

There has recently been an amalgamation of communications functions such that the police force now handles dispatching duties for the fire service as well as for the police service. In addition to that, the communicators now operate the computer terminal which is connected with the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) and they operate a computer system known as the Ontario Municipal/Provincial Police Automated Co-operative (OMPPAC). This is a computer system designed for all but the very large police forces which is part of a network involving other police forces. The program has received high praise throughout the Province and is generally accepted as a valuable increment to the police service. One of the results, however, of this move to automation is the requirement for training. It is no longer possible for an untrained person to handle the communications function of the Wallaceburg Police Force. We were told that a study done prior to implementation of the system indicated that it would require a total of 4.8 persons to operate it. The Town is fully supportive of the system and objects only to the additional cost of the one person required.

We believe that it would be unreasonable to permit an untrained person to attempt to operate the system. Training for the use of this equipment is in great demand and, we are satisfied, would not be made available for a temporary person who might be hired during the summer months to accommodate vacations. Accordingly, we must support the budget proposal of the Board in this respect.

The third suggestion put forward by the Town is that the complement of the force could be reduced from 22 sworn personnel to 2l. The present

complement of the force is 22 police officers and eight civilians.

The work load study previously mentioned establishes quite clearly that the operational branch of the force is already understaffed by one constable; to reduce the force further would seriously handicap the ability of the force to respond to the demand for service. This would result in either serious delays in police response or in additional overtime. Accordingly, we cannot approve a reduction in the force as suggested by the Town.

There are, however, economies that could be achieved in the administration of the force. The sworn personnel consist of one chief, one deputy chief, one staff sergeant, five sergeants and fourteen constables. Two of the constables work in plain clothes doing criminal investigations. That leaves l2 to man the four platoons. One platoon is, however, short one constable because Constable Murdoch has been assigned to court duties. We seriously doubt that a First Class Constable is required for this duty; we believe it could be filled by a civilian. Many police forces provide court security and court officer functions by way of a civilian who is appointed as a Special Constable. The present deployment came about because of the demands of the bench of the provincial court, criminal division. The force has been successful in negotiating a reciprocal arrangement with the City of Chatham whereby Chatham provides services with respect to certain Wallaceburg matters and Wallaceburg provides service with respect to certain Chatham matters. This admirable arrangement undoubtedly works to the benefit of taxpayers in both communities. That being said, however, we strongly recommend to the Board that they explore with the provincial judges the possibility of providing service by way of a trained Special Constable rather than a First Class Constable. This function, properly classified, does not require the skills of a First Class Constable.

This case illustrates some of the problems associated with the rank structure in the police service. Police officers are paid by rank not by the function they perform and for that reason sometimes efficient management is handicapped by the rank structure. This problem arises in connection with two other positions in the force.

The function of community services co-ordination is presently performed by a staff sergeant and the inside operations function performed by a sergeant.

The function which is labelled on the organization chart as "inside operations" could, we believe, be performed by a civilian or, certainly by a constable. To deploy a sergeant for this function is to pay more for the service than the service is worth.

Similarly, the community services co-ordination function could be performed by a civilian. It is possible that the success of the program might be hindered by having it operated by a non police officer and accordingly it may be that the deployment of a constable to this function is justified. We are absolutely

convinced, however, that the function does not require the skills of a staff sergeant.

Significant financial savings can be achieved by rationalizing the three positions mentioned above. We recommend to the Board that they consult with the Policing Services Division of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for advice in dealing with this situation.

This hearing was called to deal with budget proposals, not to deal with the administration of the force and thus we seriously doubt that we have jurisdiction to be anymore specific than we have been with respect to these management issues. In addition, however, even if we do have jurisdiction on such a hearing, we have not heard sufficient evidence from the persons involved to justify any definitive ruling.

This hearing was called at the request of the Town; that request can be simply stated as a recommendation that the proposed budget be reduced by some $80,000.00. The Town has failed to satisfy us that such savings can be achieved, as they recommend, without impairing the ability of the Board to maintain an adequate police force in accordance with the police needs of the municipality. For the above reasons the application must be refused.

DATED THIS DAY OF AUGUST, 1990.

per

W.D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Chairman