ONTARIO CIVILIAN COMMISSION ON POLICE SERVICES
IN THE MATTER OF an Inquiry into the Belleville Police Force pursuant to section 25 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the imposition of penalty on Deputy Chief Wayne Tremble.
Presiding Members:
Murray W. Chitra, Chair
Karl R. Fuller, Member
Appearances:
Dennis Brown, Q.C., Counsel to the Commission
D. Alan Whyte, Counsel for Deputy Chief Wayne Tremble
Hearing Date: Friday, January 16, 1998
Background:
The facts giving rise to this hearing are complex and span the course of several years.
In 1991 and 1992 the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (the "Commission") received a number of complaints about the administration of the Belleville Police Force (the "Force"). As a result, the Commission requested that the Ministry of the Solicitor General (the "Ministry") expedite a scheduled inspection of the Force.
The audit was conducted by three experienced Ministry staff members over a four week period. It identified a significant number of shortcomings in the administration of the Force and proposed over eighty recommendations. The Belleville Police Services Board (the "Board") responded to both the report and recommendations in writing.
On August 10, 1992 the Commission held a meeting to consider the complaints, audit report and Board's response. A letter from the Solicitor General was tabled. He wrote that his Ministry "continues to have serious concerns with respect to the administration and management of the Belleville Police Force" and requested that the Commission "investigate, inquire into and report on the Belleville Police Force".
The Commission agreed to proceed under section 25 of the Act. The terms of reference read, in part:
The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services will investigate, inquire into and report on the administration of the Belleville Police Force including:
The conduct and performance of duties of the Chief of Police.
The conduct and performance of duties of the Deputy Chief of Police.
The conduct and performance of duties of members of the Belleville
Police Services Board.
The Deputy Chief of Police in question was Wayne Tremble, the subject of this proceeding.
The Inquiry commenced in Belleville on October 8, 1992. Presiding Commission members were W. D. Drinkwalter, Q.C., Raymond G. Leclair and Karl R. Fuller. Standing was granted to Chief Robert Begbie, Deputy Chief Wayne Tremble, the Board, the Belleville Police Association and the Belleville Senior Officers Association.
Over the course of the next months there were several days of testimony, arguments, and submissions. On March 30, 1993 counsel for the Board tabled a proposal. It is described in detail in an interim report of the Commission dated June 30, 1993.
Essentially, it was determined that given the retirement of the Chief, changes to the membership of the Board, the appointment of a facilitator and progress on meeting the recommendations of the Ministry, the scope of the Inquiry would be narrowed. The significant outstanding issue was "the conduct and performance of duties of the Deputy Chief"- Wayne Tremble.
The Inquiry resumed on August 23, 1993. After 11 more days of testimony and submissions it concluded on February 4, 1994. The full process had entailed 22 days of hearings, sworn evidence from 20 witnesses, and receipt of 87 exhibits.
On July 5, 1994 the Commission tabled its unanimous final report. It set out a number of findings and recommendations. The most significant finding for the purpose of this hearing was that Deputy Chief Tremble was incapable of performing the duties of his position in a satisfactory manner. As a consequence he was demoted.
On July 27, 1994 Mr. Whyte, on behalf of Deputy Chief Tremble, filed an appeal of the Commission's decision with Divisional Court. He took issue with the Commission's process, conclusions and penalty. The effect of the appeal was to stay the demotion.
The matter was argued before Justices O'Leary, Rosenberg and Blair of the Divisional Court on October 26, 1997. Their decision was released on November 13, 1997. In essence, the findings of the Commission were upheld. However, the Court expressed
concern that Deputy Chief Tremble had not been given an opportunity to make submissions as to penalty. The Court directed that the "penalty imposed is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commission to impose penalty after Tremble has been given the opportunity to make submissions in that regard".
That is the purpose of this proceeding.
The Law:
The original hearing before the Commission took place under the authority of section 25 of the Act. At that time, it read:
25(1) The Commission may, at the Solicitor General's request ... , investigate, inquire into and report on,
(a) the conduct or the performance of duties of a municipal chief of police or other municipal police officer ... ;
(b) the administration of a municipal police force; ... The penalty provisions were found at section 25(4). It provided:
25(4) If the Commission concludes after a hearing that a member of a police force is not performing or is incapable of performing the duties of his or her position in a satisfactory manner, it may direct that the member be,
(a) demoted as the Commission specifies, permanently or for a specified period;
(b) dismissed; or
(c) retired, if the member is entitled to retire.
Deputy Chief Tremble fell within the definition of "other municipal police officer" in section 25(1)(a) and "member of a police force" under section 25(4).
Since the conclusion of the original hearing in July of 1994, the Act has undergone significant change. In particular, the proclamation on November 27, 1997 of the Police Services Amendment Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 8 modified the penalty provisions of section 25. It now reads:
25(4) If the Commission concludes, after a hearing, that the conduct of a police officer or municipal chief of police is proved on clear and convincing evidence to be misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance, it may direct that any action described in section 68, as specified by the Commission, be taken with respect to the police officer or municipal chief of police or it may direct that the police officer or municipal chief of police be retired if he or she is entitled to retire.
Section 68 contains the generic penalty provision for the new Part V. The relevant sections provide authority to:
68(2) ...
(a) dismiss the ... deputy chief of police from the police force;
(b) direct that the ... deputy chief of police be dismissed in seven days unless he or she resigns before that time;
(c) demote the ... deputy chief of police, specifying the manner and period of demotion;
(d) suspend the ... deputy chief of police without pay for a period not exceeding 30 days or 240 hours, as the case may be;
(e) direct that the ... deputy chief of police forfeit not more than three days or 24 hours pay, as the case may be; or
(f) direct that the ... deputy chief of police forfeit not more than 20 days or 160 hours off, as the case may be ...
(5) In addition to or instead of a penalty described in subsection
...(2),... may,
(a) reprimand the ... deputy chief of police ... ,
(b) direct that the ... deputy chief of police ... undergo specified counselling, treatment or training;
(c) direct that the ... deputy chief of police ... participate in a specified program or activity;
(d) take any combination of actions described in clause (a), (b)
and (c).
Revised sections 25(4), 68(2) and 68(5) are the penalty provisions which apply to this proceeding.
Submissions:
Mr. Brown, in his capacity as Commission counsel, provided us with a history of the events leading to this hearing.
While he did not make any recommendations with respect to the matter of penalty, he identified a number of issues which he felt should be addressed.
Specifically, Mr. Brown drew our attention to portions of the transcript, exhibits and findings of the Commission which he suggested raised concerns about Deputy Chief Tremble's ability to communicate either orally or in writing with his subordinates in a direct, clear, honest, open or fair manner. He identified incidents involving Constable Taylor, Anne Brennan-Walsh, Constable Noseworthy, and Constable Jamieson to illustrate his point.
As well, Mr. Brown pointed to events which he felt raised concerns about Deputy Chief Tremble's honesty with Ministry officials, the Inquiry, his professional judgement and overall management approach. These related to written answers provided in a Ministry "self-audit" form, responses given under oath at the Inquiry about Constable Noseworthy's integrity and Anne Brennan-Walsh's marital status, and statements concerning criteria for promotion.
Mr. Whyte, on behalf of Deputy Chief Tremble, brought a number of considerations to our attention. The first related to the Chief of Police and the Board, under whom Deputy Chief Tremble served from 1986 to 1993. He described Chief Begbie as "autocratic and overbearing". He stated that the Chief had "a very strong personality and ... operated on a day to day basis" with what could be characterized as "an outdated policing style". Mr. Whyte also characterized the Board as being "unduly legalistic" with a "guarded style".
Mr. Whyte provided us with a copy of Deputy Chief Tremble's job description. He suggested that it limited the Deputy Chief's role to that of a subservient subordinate to the Chief with little independent scope to operate.
Referring to a 1988 Ministry Inspection Report, Mr. Whyte suggested that the problems which existed with the Force arose primarily from the actions of the Chief and the Board and that Deputy Chief Tremble was a "secondary protagonist", implementing the decisions of others that he could neither directly control nor influence. Mr. Whyte noted that with the retirement of the Chief and changes to the composition of the Board, Deputy Chief Tremble was put in the unfortunate and unfair position of being the "only man left standing" ... "to face the music".
He pointed to a 1994 Ministry Inspection report which noted significant improvement to the Force under the direction of recently appointed Chief David Klenavic and a new Board. He suggested that Deputy Chief Tremble was an "integral part" of this "turning the corner" and "he should get some credit for that".
Mr. Whyte stated that Deputy Chief Tremble does not accept the findings of the Inquiry as it relates to him "but in a legal context he realizes that he must live with them". As to the matter of Deputy Chief Tremble having difficulty communicating clearly, directly or honestly, he stated "to the extent that those problems ever existed, they no longer exist".
In this regard, Mr. Whyte brought to our attention a number of sets of documents which relate to the Deputy Chief's performance since July of 1994. The first is a certificate and course outline for a four month correspondence program offered by Dalhousie University entitled "Communications Skills for Police Personnel" which Deputy Chief Tremble successfully completed in January of 1995.
The second are Performance Evaluations prepared by Chief Klenavic dated February
13, 1995 and April 7, 1997. Both are generally positive and rate Deputy Tremble's work performance and "communication skills" at "above average".
We were also advised of a number of different duties or functions that Deputy Chief Tremble has successfully performed since 1994. These include Interim Administrative Divisional Commander and Interim Public Complaints Officer. In addition, Deputy Chief Tremble undertook responsibilities relating to Freedom of Information requests, human resources management, training, intelligence coordination, community policing initiatives and labour negotiations.
Mr. Whyte provided us a copy of a letter of appreciation from the Hastings and Prince Edward Housing Authority arising from a workshop that Deputy Chief Tremble facilitated in 1995 on cross cultural issues. As well, he provided us with copies of letters of support and confidence from Chief Klenavic dated November 27, 1997 and January 15, 1998 and a similar resolution from the Board dated November 28, 1997.
Mr. Whyte described to us Deputy Chief Tremble's employment history. This included
20 years with the Hanover Police Service with 13 years as Chief of that Force. He stated that, with the exception of the Inquiry "there is no evidence of any black marks, discipline or anything else on his record".
Mr. Whyte argued that given the above, the Deputy Chief's value to the Service at an important time in its history and the remedial nature of inquiries, no purpose would be served in imposing a substantial penalty. He suggested we consider either a one-day demotion to the rank of Inspector or forfeiture of one day's pay.
Decision:
In considering the question of penalty we have had the benefit of a significant volume of information. We have reviewed and examined the transcripts and exhibits of the original Inquiry. We have read the interim decision of the Commission dated June 30, 1993, the Final Report of July 5, 1994 and the November 13, 1997 decision of the Divisional Court. We have also had the benefit of the thorough submissions of Mr. Brown and Mr. Whyte.
When assessing penalty there are a number of key factors to be weighed. These include the nature and seriousness of the conduct, acknowledgment of responsibility and consistency in dealing with similar conduct.
Other relevant concerns can include employment history, deterrence, the ability to reform or rehabilitate the officer in question and the impact on the police force that would occur should the officer remain with the service.
A number of facts are clear to us. In 1992 the Belleville Police Force was in turmoil. This situation had existed for a number of years. A detailed four week Ministry audit, a series of public complaints and twenty two days of Inquiry reveal that much of this turmoil flowed from serious problems with the internal management and administration of the Force.
The management and administration of the Force included Wayne Tremble, who had performed the function of Deputy Chief of Police for several years.
The role of Deputy Chief of Police is an important one in police forces in the province of Ontario. A Deputy Chief of Police is the second highest ranking officer of his or her Force. In recognition of this fact, they are the only member of a Force, besides the Chief, who are directly recruited by the board.
A Deputy Chief of Police serves a key role in assisting a Chief of Police in performing his or her statutory duties and implementing board policy. However, they are not mere assistants. They undertake essential functions, serve as acting Chief in periods of absence or vacation, and exercise independent delegated statutory authority (i.e. discipline and public complaints).
This fact was reflected in Wayne Tremble's job description. In addition to duties relating to the support and assistance of his Chief of Police, it required that:
He shall exercise a general supervision over the members of the Force under his command and see that the rules laid down for their guidance are strictly enforced.
He shall be responsible for the good order, efficiency and discipline of each member of the Force under his command and will report to the Chief of Police any member guilty of misconduct or the violation of any of the Rules and Regulations of the Force.
He is authorized to dispose of any minor derelictions which may be prevented by kindly admonition and advice of those members under his command ...
The effective exercise of such authority requires knowledge of policing, strong leadership and management abilities, an ability to establish trust, judgment, professionalism, vision and excellent oral and written communication skills. This must be coupled with integrity, strength of character, consistency, stamina and a strong sense of responsibility.
The evidence disclosed at the Inquiry and reflected in the Commission's Final Report indicates significant deficiencies in Wayne Tremble's performance of his duties as Deputy Chief of Police. These deficiencies clearly contributed in an important way to the sorry state of the Belleville Police Force.
The evidence disclosed numerous examples of situations where Deputy Chief Tremble was not direct, clear or honest with those under his command in both oral and written communication. This engendered fear, mistrust, suspicion and anxiety.
To make matters worse, Deputy Chief Tremble's explanation of his conduct to the Inquiry was less than forthright. With respect to the Anne Brennan-Walsh incident the panel stated: "We find it difficult to accept that Deputy Chief Tremble does not recall, and must conclude that he was dissembling."
On other matters Deputy Chief Tremble offered self-serving explanations which were so obtuse and unresponsive as to be meaningless. At one point the panel wrote: "When testifying before us we noted his demeanour and his failure to respond to the question asked. We have concluded that the failure to respond was not the result of an inability to understand the questions but rather something else."
In addition to the above, it is clear that Deputy Chief Tremble completed a Ministry "self audit" question on the operations of the Belleville Police Force with at least one key response which was not true. This question asked whether "employees are evaluated at least annually." Deputy Chief Tremble answered "yes" although this was clearly not correct. Such conduct strikes at the heart of a process designed to ensure the proper evaluation and assessment of police services.
Finally, we note that at one point in the course of the Inquiry, Deputy Chief Tremble attempted to explain a memorandum that he had written on his views of the proper characteristics of a supervisor. The panel concluded that the memorandum reflected a "management philosophy from another age".
Any one of these findings would be of concern. In total, they represent clear and convincing evidence of a consistent pattern of failure to perform duties in a satisfactory manner by a senior command officer over the course of a number of years to the detriment of his Force.
We are concerned that Deputy Chief Tremble does not and has never accepted any responsibility whatsoever for the great difficulties experienced by the Belleville Police Force for the period from 1986 to 1994.
While he may not acknowledge it, it is evident that the Deputy Chief had serious problems with communicating clearly, directly and honestly with his subordinates. Mr. Whyte suggests that "to the extent that those problems ever existed" they have been resolved by the completion of a four month correspondence course. We do not accept this submission. It is difficult to see how such a brief program of written instruction could resolve long-standing oral communication problems. Certainly, such a program cannot even begin to address the concerns relating to honesty.
Over the course of the past thirty years, the Commission and its predecessor the Ontario Police Commission have conducted a number of Inquiries into the conduct of senior police officers. This has most typically involved the conduct of Chiefs of Police.
The penalties imposed in proceedings under section 25 and its predecessors have been either dismissal or demotion. In this regard we note Inquiry into Napanee Police Force
(July 19, 1976), and Inquiry into Waterloo Regional Police Force (November 20, 1978) where the recommended penalty was dismissal. As well, in Inquiry into Stratford Police Force (May 4, 1976) and Inquiry into Strathroy Police Force (January 18, 1983) the Commission indicated that it would have recommended termination had the Chiefs not resigned. Finally, in Inquiry into Amherstburg Police Force (May 29, 1985) the recommended penalty was demotion to Sergeant.
Implicit in these decisions is the notion that with high rank and responsibility also comes very significant accountability. We believe this same principle would also apply to the position of Deputy Chief - the second highest office in any police force.
Even acknowledging the remedial nature of inquiries, serious dereliction of duty by an individual occupying such an office requires an extremely high level of accountability. This is not diminished because of the retirement or completion of term of other responsible parties.
That being said, we acknowledge Deputy Chief Tremble's prior lengthy unblemished period of employment with the smaller Hanover Police Force. As well, we note the positive performance assessments of recent satisfactory work completed under the direction of Chief Klenavic. This would suggest that Wayne Tremble has the capacity to rehabilitate and reform and make a future contribution to the Belleville Police Force.
Further, given the current good order of the Belleville Police Force, and the strong support and direction of Chief Klenavic and the present Board, it is our view that the impact of Wayne Tremble remaining with the Service would not be as great as it would have been in the past.
Accordingly, in our opinion the appropriate disposition in this case is demotion. We hereby demote Wayne Tremble to the rank of Inspector. This demotion is for a minimum of two years. Any subsequent promotion must be as a result of the normal competition process.
We also order that, over the course of the next two years, WayneTremble, under the direction of Chief Klenavic, undertake a suitable detailed course of in-class practical instruction directed at improving his oral communication skills.
We would like to make it clear that we believe that this disposition to be at the extreme low end of the range for the nature of the conduct in question.
DATED THIS 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998.
Murray W Chitra
Chair, OCCPS
Karl R. Fuller
Member, OCCPS