ONTARIO CIVILIAN COMMISSION ON POLICE SERVICES
IN THE MATTER OF an application by the Town of Goderich for consent to the abolition of the Goderich Police Service
Presiding Members:
Murray W. Chitra, Chair
Sam Cancilla, Member
Appearances:
D.J. Murphy, Solicitor for the Town of Goderich Doug Shearer, Inspector, Ontario Provincial Police G. W. Mix, Sergeant, Ontario Provincial Police
Don McInnes, Staff Sergeant, Ontario Provincial Police W. E. Trachsel, Inspector, Ontario Provincial Police Hugh McCaughey, Mayor, Town of Mitchell
Ron McKay, Chair, Clinton Police Services Board
Charles Mann, Mayor, Town of Kincardine
Irwin Johnston, Mayor, Town of Seaforth
Ray Davis, Sergeant, Ontario Provincial Police
Ben Hoogenboom, Mayor, Town of Exeter
George Lonsbary, Chief, Goderich Police Service Rick Magie, Chair, Goderich Police Services Board D.J. Shewfelt, Mayor, Town of Goderich
Luke Gagnon, Treasurer, Town of Goderich
Ken Brownlee, Vice President, Goderich Police Association
Maurice Hodgson, Policing Services Adviser, Ministry of the Solicitor General and
Correctional Services
Donald Kernick, Resident, Town of Goderich James Eric Kirk, Resident, Town of Goderich Bud Oke, Resident, Town of Goderich
Hearing Date: September 24, 1997
Background:
The Town of Goderich is a well established community on Highway 8 in Huron County, in south west Ontario on the shores of Lake Huron. The current population is approximately 7500.
Policing services in the community have been provided by a local municipal police force for the past fifty years. The current service consists of a chief, two sergeants, 10 constables, 1 special constable, 2 secretaries, and 10 part-time civilian guards.
Policing is provided 24 hours a day from an office located at 65 West Street. Dispatching is provided by the Walkerton Police Service under the provisions of an arrangement approved by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (the “Commission”) on April 15, 1996.
For a number of years Goderich Town Council (the “Town Council”) and the Goderich Police Services Board (the “Board”) have been debating whether or not to continue the local force or contract for policing from the Ontario Provincial Police (the “OPP”).
These resolutions were forwarded to the Honourable Robert Runciman, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services (the “Solicitor General”) with a request that the Commission review the proposal as required by section 40 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 as amended (the “Act”).
This correspondence was tabled at the regularly scheduled Commission meeting of July 14, 1997. It was agreed that a public meeting under section 40 of the Act would be convened to consider the proposal. It was subsequently scheduled for September 24,
1997 at the McKay Centre, 10 Nelson Street East, Goderich. Notice of this fact was published in local newspapers on September 3rd and 17th.
The meeting took place as scheduled. A total of 20 individuals either gave evidence, made presentations or offered submissions. As well, we received correspondence, written material and other documents in support of the various positions taken.
The Law:
The operation of policing in Ontario is governed by the provisions of the Act.
Section 4(1) of the Act imposes upon municipalities the obligation to provide “adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs”. This may be accomplished in different ways. A municipality may choose to establish and maintain its own police
force, enter into a joint policing arrangement with another community, or contract for policing services from the OPP.
In those cases where a local police service exists, section 38 of the Act states that it “shall consist of a chief of police and such other police officers and other employees as the board considers adequate, and shall be provided with the equipment and facilities that the board considers adequate”. The obligation to ensure that the necessary staff, equipment and facilities are in place rests with the Board.
Once a municipal police service has been established, it can only be abolished for the purposes of putting in place one of the other policing options (i.e. OPP policing), after following the procedures set out in the Act. Specifically, section 40 provides:
40(1) A board may terminate the employment of a member of the police force for the purpose of abolishing the police force … if the Commission consents and if the abolition … does not contravene this Act.
(2)
T he Commission shall consent to the termination of the employment of a member of a police force under subsection (1) only if,
(a) the member and the board have made an agreement dealing with severance pay or agreed to submit the matter to arbitration; or
(b) the Commission has made an order under subsection (3).
(3) If the member and the board do not make an agreement dealing with severance pay and do not agree to submit the matter to arbitration, the Commission, if it is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the abolition of the police force … may order the member and the board to submit the matter to arbitration and give any necessary directions in that connection.
If the Commission is of the view that these requirements have been met, then a municipality may enter into a contract with the Solicitor General under section 10 of the Act for policing services to be provided by the OPP.
The Issues:
The nature of this scheme is self-evident. It is to ensure that no municipal police force is abolished unless arrangements are in place which will satisfactorily meet the policing needs of the community in question. Any new arrangement must provide for appropriate staff, equipment and facilities to ensure adequate and effective policing. As well, no member of a municipal police force is to be terminated without steps being taken to allow for proper severance.
Accordingly, the purpose of this proceeding is two-fold.
First, the Commission is to receive and review the proposal which has been accepted by Town Council and the Board. We are to consider any public comments and submissions.
Second, assuming we are satisfied that the proposal allows for “adequate and effective police services”, then our next obligation is to determine whether or not a member is to be terminated as a consequence of abolition. If this is the case, and the parties have reached an agreement with respect to severance or consent to have any outstanding matters referred to arbitration - then the matter ends there. If such agreement has not been reached then the Commission may order the parties to arbitration.
That being said, it is worth noting that given the wording of the Act there are a number of matters beyond the Commission’s purview. It is not our role to judge the relative merits of municipal versus OPP contract policing in a particular community or the potential of any proposal to save or increase policing costs. These are matters for Town Council and the Board to assess.
It is not our function to judge whether or not what is being proposed is superior to what may already be in place or some other alternative. Our focus is to determine whether the arrangements being proposed meet the requirements of the Act. Finally, it is not our function to determine what constitutes an appropriate severance arrangement. That is a matter for bargaining between the parties and, in the absence of agreement, for arbitration.
The Proposal:
The proposed policing arrangement was described to us in detail by Mr. Murphy with the assistance of a number of witnesses.
Essentially, what is being advanced is the creation of a detachment which would integrate policing for the Town of Goderich with existing local OPP resources. In practice this would mean the establishment of a local OPP unit with 71 uniformed officers and 7 support staff. As well, a local auxiliary program with 6 to 8 volunteers is planned.
The integrated detachment would be managed by a staff sergeant with the assistance of 6 full-time sergeants. They would in turn supervise the activities of 64 constables who would be supported by 4 clerical staff. In addition, 3 individuals would be employed to perform janitorial duties.
Of the total complement of the proposed detachment, a number of officers would be dedicated exclusively to policing the Town of Goderich. Specifically, this would include 1
supervising sergeant, 12 constables and 1 clerical staff. As well, .17 of the time of the staff sergeant would be dedicated to Goderich policing concerns.
All existing uniformed officers of the Goderich Police Service will be offered employment with the OPP. One of the two existing clerical staff will be offered employment. The remaining secretary is currently on long-term disability and will continue to be the responsibility of the Board. Those part-time civilian guards who are not already on the OPP casual list will be placed on that list.
A workload analysis, prepared by the OPP, focused on the number of incidents experienced by the current service between 1993 to 1996. Based on that analysis, it is proposed that these officers be dedicated to provide 19,176 hours of policing exclusively to the Town of Goderich at an estimated annual cost of $1,049,574.
We are advised that of the 12 constables, 1 would be allocated to criminal investigations, 2 would work with court case management, court security and community services and the remaining 9 would conduct patrols. It is proposed that there will a minimum of two officers on duty, seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
In terms of equipment, the dedicated officers would be provided 4 police vehicles, as opposed to the current 3. New mobile radio equipment will be installed and a fixed radio tower constructed. This will permit an officer outside of a vehicle to contact other officers or citizens at home. As well, officers and civilian staff would be trained on OMPPAC (a common computerized record management and reporting system).
Dispatching services for the detachment would be provided by the OPP Mount Forest Communications Centre using a province-wide 1-888 number. We are advised that this facility currently employs 28 civilian dispatchers under the supervision of 6 sergeants and 1 staff sergeant. A sergeant is on duty 24 hours per day.
We are advised that Mount Forest has the necessary capacity to manage 200 to 300 monthly expected calls for policing service received from the Town of Goderich. Backup is available from other OPP communication centres in Barrie and London.
It is proposed that the existing OPP offices on Highway 21 serve as the main administrative centre for the integrated detachment. It is planned to close the existing police station and move all staff to the OPP building which is located several kilometers from downtown Goderich outside of the current Town limits. We are advised that this will facilitate orientation to OPP procedures.
At an unspecified time prior to January 1, 1998 some of the officers are to be relocated to a storefront Community Policing Office in Town. The location, size and layout of this office have not been determined. This is meant to be a temporary arrangement.
We were provided with a resolution from Council dated September 22, 1997 to the effect that the Town would provide such a storefront facility “until such time as a permanent facility is completed meeting adequacy requirements”.
Two further resolutions were passed on October 6, 1997 and forwarded to our attention. The first reads in part, that Council approves “a temporary facility for policing in the core area and that it be referred to the Environment and Works Committee for finalization and offer to lease to Council for approval subject to determination of adequacy provisions of the Act.”
The second states that Council agrees in principle with “the attached Allan Avis Architect floor plan for a permanent Police facility and refer the plan to the Environmental and Works Committee for implementation subject to determination of adequacy provisions of the Act.”
We are informed that the construction of a permanent facility is in the planning stages and is awaiting the outcome of a motion passed by the County Council for the County of Huron before deciding on the possible size of such a facility. This motion dated August
11, 1997 requests “that the OPP be asked to give an estimate on the cost of policing for townships, villages and towns if the County were to be the contracting agency.”
Submissions:
In support of the application Mr. Murphy argued that the proposal would allow for adequate and effective policing in the Town of Goderich.
He suggested that as a practical matter such changes are necessary to meet the increased responsibilities arising from Bill 105. As well, he identified concerns flowing from cost constraints and meeting growing expenditures for technology and training.
Mr. Murphy argues that the proposal will allow for better community policing in Goderich with a proactive focus. He spoke of increased foot patrols in the Town centre, the creation of a committee of volunteers to advise on policing matters and better communications service. He noted the increase in front line officers from 10 to 12, the reduction in administration and the benefits arising from the creation of an auxiliary unit.
He is supported in these assertions by Board Chair Rick Magie and Mayor Shewfelt. Mr. Magie highlighted the need for both cooperation and coordination between jurisdictions to meet the requirements of new provincial standards and such initiatives as the Campbell Report. Mayor Shewfelt spoke of the need to introduce practical community policing initiatives and the pressing needs to meet financial constraints. He stated that he is very impressed with the proposal and feels it will meet these objectives.
We heard from Mayor Hugh McCaughey of Mitchell, Chair Ron McKay of the Clinton Police Services Board, Mayor Charles Mann of Kincardine, Mayor Irwin Johnston of Seaforth and Mayor Ben Hoogenbaum of Exeter. All spoke of the OPP services in their communities and expressed general satisfaction.
Mr. Brownlee, on behalf of the Goderich Police Association expressed support of disbandment. He indicated a desire to see matters proceed quickly. Letters were tabled
from solicitor James R. Caskey requesting that immediate arbitration be ordered on behalf of the two sergeants currently employed by the service and Chief Lonsbary.
Mr. Maurice Hodgson from the Ministry commented on various aspects of the proposals. Generally, he expressed the view that the plan was well considered. However, he voiced reservation about the proposed accommodation. He indicated that much remains to be done in this regard.
A number of citizens expressed either opposition to or concern about the proposal. We received a letter from Ms. Corry M. Schotts stating concerns about the impact of the proposal on the safety of residents, summer visitors, seniors and children.
Mr. Kernick took issue with the proposed staffing level and costing. He pointed specifically to the “10% provincial services offset”. He suggested that this either means that Goderich would be receiving 10% less of the policing than it actually needed, thus impairing local safety and security, or the OPP was simply offering its services at a discount.
Mr. Kirk expressed concerns with respect to staffing, accommodation, supervision, reporting, community policing, the provincial offset and other costing issues. In particular, he pointed to a 1994 OPP costing for Goderich calling for two sergeants and more hours of service. He indicated difficulty with the idea of one sergeant properly supervising the dedicated staff. He stated that there are many important unanswered questions about the proposed storefront office (e.g. will it have change rooms for staff? will it have cells to hold prisoners?). He suggested that the 10% discount would adversely impact on the ability of the OPP to provide regularly scheduled patrols and community policing.
Finally, Mr. Oke expressed concern with proposed staffing levels, costs and community input on the proposal. He recommended a plebiscite on policing.
Decision:
Is what is being proposed likely to provide the Town of Goderich with “adequate and effective police services”?
The Act does not define what constitutes “adequate and effective police services”. However, some assistance in this regard can be found in two sources. These include certain provisions of the legislation and prior decisions of the Commission.
These decisions have, in different contexts, articulated various means to measure “adequacy”. As we noted in Town of Orillia (January 17, 1996) these measures have included historical (levels in the past), comparative (relative to communities of a similar size), prospective (anticipated), and alternative (other means to provide). Clearly, not all measures would apply in every instance.
Given the key factors of staffing, equipment and facilities is this proposal acceptable?
The Commission has some experience in staffing matters relating to the Goderich Police Service. In 1993 we conducted a section 40 hearing concerning the force’s communication and dispatching arrangements: Town of Goderich (September 14,
1993). In 1995 we held a hearing under section 39 of the Act dealing with the force’s annual budget: Town of Goderich (August 4, 1995). In 1996 we conducted a second section 40 hearing on the matter of the force’s communication and dispatching arrangements: Town of Goderich (April 15, 1996).
A good portion of the 1995 proceedings focused on the uniformed staffing level of the service. At the time the force was composed of a chief, 1 sergeant and 10 constables. Following a detailed examination of the variables referred to earlier we found at page 12 of our decision:
At the end of the day, our conclusion is that the force requires one additional full-time officer to be hired this fiscal year. We are not convinced that two full-time officers are required in 1995.
However, it may well be, that a further full-time or part-time officer will be needed in 1996.
While it is true that the population base of the town remains stable, and there is not major growth in crime, the force is confronted with a steady increase in demands for service. As a result current policing is largely reactive and the Service is not able to effectively meet its legislated mandate to provide community policing.
The increase of one complement this year would certainly be consistent with staffing levels of other forces in communities of a similar size.
In other words, the Commission found that 11 constables were required for adequate and effective policing in 1995 and 11.5 to 12 would likely be necessary for 1996.
What is being suggested in this 1997 proposal is a dedicated complement of 12 constables. This would appear to be consistent with our prior analysis. We have not been provided with any information which would change this conclusion. Accordingly, in our view, the proposed constable level should be sufficient.
Concern was expressed about the proposed level of supervision. Our attention was drawn to a 1994 OPP costing for Goderich which called for a complement of .38 staff sergeant, 2 sergeants, 12.2 constables, 1 clerical worker for a total of 21,228 hours of dedicated service. The key difference between that proposal and the current one is a single sergeant’s position.
The span of control contemplated in the 1994 plan at the integrated detachment level was approximately one supervisor to six constables or staff. The ratio in the current plan is approximately one to 10.
A similar issue arose in Town of Orillia. At page 10 of that decision we wrote:
The proposed organizational structure is certainly “flatter” than that which exists in the Orillia Police Service. By that we mean that there are fewer management positions between the most senior officer and working constable. This strikes us as being sensible in that it allows resources to be focused more on front-line policing. That being said, we do not see why
9 managers (1 Inspector, 7 Sergeants, and 1 Executive Assistant) should not be able to effectively supervise and direct a total detachment workforce of 81 regular officers and civilian employees.
The approved span of control in that case was between one to 9 or 10 depending on whether you consider the Executive Assistant as a supervisor.
It is difficult to see why the same logic would not apply to this situation. It seems realistic to expect that 1 staff sergeant and 6 sergeants could effectively supervise 71 constables and support staff. This is particularly the case given the 24 hour backup of the 7 uniformed supervisors in Mount Forest.
That brings us to the matter of the “10% provincial services offset”. This is described as a reduction to the base cost of OPP municipal contract policing in recognition of the necessity to secure the ongoing availability of officers to meet provincially mandated responsibilities. Examples given include the need to mobilize officers and equipment in times of emergencies and disasters or the requirement to assemble numbers of front- line municipal officers for short periods to assist in major investigations.
The concept of mutual support makes sense. For instance, if a tornado were to strike a part of Huron County it is right that OPP Goderich staff be available to aid their neighbours. The same expectation would apply if a natural disaster were to happen in the Town of Goderich.
That being said, it is difficult to reconcile the idea of exclusively dedicated officers with a costing formula that suggests that up to 10% of their time could be spent elsewhere.
However, as noted earlier it is not our role or mandate to pass any judgments with respect to cost or pricing. Our review of the proposed agreement indicates that it clearly commits the OPP to assign the uniformed staff noted earlier to dedicated services to the Town of Goderich in the amount of 19,176 guaranteed hours.
Based on this, we are of the opinion that the proposed level of staffing and supervision should allow adequate and effective policing.
This brings us to the question of equipment. The proposal increases the number of available vehicles and introduces new and improved radio equipment. As well, it calls for the introduction of OMPPAC. At page 12 of our 1995 budget decision we stated:
It is difficult for us to imagine a Service the size of Goderich without the benefit of the computerized records management and other features in OMPPAC. A great deal of time and effort of the current Service (both uniformed and support) must be wasted in paperwork. This can hardly be described as “effective”.
Accordingly, we would allow the budgeted item for OMPPAC. If the full amount had been requested this year to complete the purchase, we would have allowed that.
At page 11 of our 1996 Goderich section 40 decision we wrote:
This continues to be our opinion. Further we are advised that there has been sufficient funds accumulated for the purpose of obtaining OMPPAC. It would seem to us that such a purchase would ease any paper burden imposed on staff as a result of the transition. Accordingly, we would strongly suggest that the Board consider the installation of OMPPAC this fiscal year.
The introduction of OMPPAC is overdue. Like the other improvements proposed it will be of obvious benefit to the community.
We have also considered the component of the proposal dealing with the transfer of the dispatching function to Mount Forest. At page 8 of our 1996 decision we stated:
It is self evident that a proper communications and dispatch system is a key element of “adequate and effective” policing. Citizens of a community must be able to readily contact their local police force in cases of emergency. The police force must have an effective means to respond to such calls for service.
We heard testimony from Inspector Trachsel concerning the Mount Forest Communications Centre. This included details about its history, structure, operation, staffing and capacity. Simply put, we are satisfied that the proposed communication and dispatching arrangement for the Town of Goderich is workable, practical and will meet the needs of that community.
Accordingly, we find that the aspect of the proposal concerning equipment, communications and dispatching should meet the requirements of adequate and effective policing.
This leaves the issue of facilities. Frankly, we find this aspect of the proposal to be troubling.
The plan put forward is to close the existing police facility in the Town centre and move the staff several kilometres away - outside the municipality. We are sceptical about the ability of the existing Highway 21 detachment building to satisfactorily accommodate these additional officers.
More to the point, we do not believe that a community the size and location of Goderich can be adequately policed without a visible local presence in the form of an office. It has had this for 50 years.
Certainly, a properly designed and established Community Policing Office or “storefront” could meet this requirement. This is the situation in the neighbouring towns of Mitchell, Clinton, and Seaforth. Exeter also has a facility within town limits.
We have been provided with resolutions calling for the establishment of such an office in Goderich at some unspecified date before January 1st. There are no firm details about location, size, furnishings, cost or other essential matters. There is no lease, floor plan, construction schedule or specifically dedicated funds for such work.
The practical details of the working arrangement between this office and the detachment do not appear to have been fully determined. For example, would the storefront office have a holding facility? Would there be computer access to CPIC and OMPPAC? Where would firearms be stored? Where would the police vehicles be parked?
In the absence of such information, we are not able to assess whether such a facility would meet the needs of the community. As in our 1993 Goderich section 40 decision, we must conclude that this aspect of the proposal is not concrete. Absent a specific plan, we cannot conclude that the overall proposal would allow for adequate and effective policing.
We say this in the knowledge that the current police station has many deficiencies. However, that building is not the subject of this proceeding nor part of this application. Therefore, the request for the abolition of the Goderich Police Service is not granted. Accordingly, it is not necessary for us to deal with any matters relating to termination or severance, even though all parties have consented to arbitration.
However, recognizing the work and effort that have gone into this application and our findings with respect to the other essential elements, we will remain seized of this matter for 90 days. If a detailed plan for facilities with appropriate firm commitments can be presented within that time we are prepared to revisit our conclusion.
DATED THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997.
Murray W. Chitra
Chair, OCCPS