Category Archives: Uncategorized

Winnipeg Police Shy Away From the Media

(And the main stream media lets them get away with it)

The Winnipeg Police Service was one of the first police agencies in Canada to conduct daily media briefings.

Daily media briefings give the police service the opportunity to notify the media about major crimes that have occurred in the city. It also gives the media the opportunity to ask questions.  Media briefings serve a valuable role in terms of police accountability to the public and assist in ensuring transparency.

During the months of March, April and May of 2009 the Winnipeg Police Service cancelled the daily media briefings on 29 occasions.  That’s 31% of the time.

In March, April and May of 2010 the Service cancelled 38 media briefings.  That’s 41% of the time.

Why is the Service cancelling so many media briefings?  From looking at the crime numbers it would seem that there is no shortage of crimes to report on.  Could it be that the media has lost interest in crime issues and the workings of the police service?  Perhaps.  It seems to me that the main stream media is placing less emphasis on the police beat than they have in the past.

Another theory might be that the Police Service is bowing to political pressure to minimize crime issues in the period leading up to civic elections.

When the media asks the tough questions it challenges the police to perform at a higher level.  It results in a closer examination of the issues at hand both in terms of public debate and discussion internally within the police service.  The public safety agenda and public safety policy are not only dependent on those who do the patrolling and arresting but also on open public debate of the issues.  The role of the media is to help focus that debate.  We need the media to ferret out the pertinent issues and ensure they are brought to the attention of the public.

There is a delicate balance between institutions that has evolved over many years.   The role of the media as a watch dog over public spending, public policy and policing has been part of that balance.

It seems unfortunate that the main stream media in the performance of its ‘watch dog’ role has gotten old or tired or perhaps lost its teeth.  The public needs a media that does more than gnaw on the bones they are thrown.  The public needs a media that actually goes out and looks where the bones are buried and unearths the issues and subjects them to debate and scrutiny.

The role of the media is not to create a comfort zone for public institutions such as the police.  Their role is to create a comfort zone for the public  When the media does its job, the public gets closer to what it needs and deserves.

Mayor Follows Lastman’s Lead

In 2002 Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman reached out to shake the hand of a member of the Hells Angels, unleashing a fire storm of protest from police officials in Ontario. Gerald Tremblay, the mayor of Montréal at the time who, unlike mayor Lastman, had an understanding and appreciation of what the Hells Angels were all about condemned it as well.    

In Winnipeg this week the publication of a photo showing Winnipeg’s mayor wearing a big grin and posing with former gang members, some with charges still outstanding, didn’t seem to ruffle too many feathers.  

Seven years ago mayor Lastman attempted to deflect criticism by using the ignorance defense, claiming he did not know who the Hells Angels were.  Winnipeg’s mayor employed a similar defense, claiming ignorance of the fact that any of the men he was posing with had outstanding criminal charges.  It worked for Lastman.  Or did it?  

In the Toronto case the mayor’s actions were soundly criticized by then Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino as well as the head of the police union.  

Mayor Katz probably does not have to worry that his actions will be criticized by the Winnipeg police.  The Mayor is invoking the ‘police made me do it’ line of defense to bolster the ‘I didn’t know’ defense.  According to the mayor the only reason he posed for the picture was because the police asked him to do it.  

Police in Winnipeg say the photo will be helpful in conducting background checks.  Does that suggest that the background checks were not conducted and the personal histories of these people were not known prior to the police service advising or asking the mayor to pose for the picture?  

This would seem to be a situation where either the mayor is receiving bad advice from the ‘experts’, or he is exercising poor judgment in terms of dealing with the advice he is receiving.  Perhaps the so called experts in this instance are also lacking better judgment.  

Enlisting the help of ‘reformed’ gang members to help fight the gang problem is not new to Winnipeg.  Former Chief of Police Dave Cassels got himself in a lot of hot water over the issue.  More recently the Pappiiwak halfway house fiasco illustrated the pitfalls of taking the word of ex gang members at face value.     

When governments are approached by former gang members wanting to initiate gang prevention programs, governments have the upper hand.  These people want something, usually funding.  This puts government in the driver’s seat.    At a very minimum government and the police should: 

  • Check for outstanding warrants;
  • Conduct a criminal record check;
  • Conduct an in-depth background investigation similar to the kind the police do on prospective recruits;
  • Insist that those involved have been pardoned, or at a minimum, have applied for a pardon.   

This is not to suggest that gang prevention strategies cannot or should not involve ‘flying with the crows’.  Flying with the crows, however, comes with its own set of risks.  By taking the appropriate measures up front one can at least be prepared. 

Of prime importance is that governments, when they embark on gang prevention strategies involving ex-criminals, ensure they are indeed ex-criminals.  There must at a minimum be a ‘do no further harm’ guarantee.  There must be a high (very high) probability that those enrolled in such programs will be helped, not further corrupted.

Will the New PSB Please Step Forward

The New Mega Public Safety Building 

This is the first in a series of articles examining the re-location of police headquarters from 151 Princess Street to 266 Graham Avenue.  This series will take a  look at the expressed operational rationale behind the move and the related costs. 

The Question:  Which building will the Winnipeg Police Service be moving into when they vacate the Public Safety Building?   

A)  The Winnipeg Post Office office tower at 266 Graham,    

                                                    OR

B)  The Winnipeg Mail Processing Plant, (WMPP) illustrated in the photo below?

The Answer:  B, the Mail Prosessing Plant

There is a lot of buzz in Winnipeg these days, especially in the police community, about what has been dubbed as the new ‘Mega PSB’.  The $135 million plan recently approved by council will see police moving out of its current headquarters, the Public Safety Building at 151 Princess Street, by 2013. 

Which space are they actually moving into?  If your impression is that it will be the office tower facing Graham Avenue, featured on the City of Winnipeg website as the new headquaters, then you have the wrong impression.  In this case what you see is not what you get.  * (See web link below)  You can’t be blamed entirely, though.  The mayor and the city spin doctors (another example of your tax dollars at work) have done a nice job of spinning this one.   

The portion of the property that the police are actually getting is the old Winnipeg Mail Processing Plant – the dumpy, or shall we say, squat, four-storey structure at the south end of the property and not the impressive office tower that has been so prominently featured in the media.  (Of course, once you put that brand spanking-new shooting range on top, it might not look so squat.)  The public seems to have concluded, almost unanimously, that the police were moving into the office tower.  But even with the best spin it is difficult to fool all of the people all of the time. 

In fairness the report prepared for Council when carefully read implies that the police won’t be getting the office tower.   As is so often the case, interpretation becomes important and the devil is truly in the details. **  In this instance, the ‘details’ reveal that  the portion of the property being redeveloped is limited to the Winnipeg Mail Processing Plant and does not include the office tower which served as the backdrop for the ‘turning over the key/early Christmas present ceremony’ orchestrated by the City.  The office tower portion of the property, it turns out, is tied up in existing leases and options and will not likely be available for police use for the next 15 years. 

The current plan calls for the city to develop approximately half a million square feet of space for police use at a cost of $135 million:  $30 million to purchase the building and another $105 million to do the upgrades.  There are some important unanswered questions hanging in the air.  Anyone who has restored an old building, or watched This Old House knows that when you revive old buildings they can become money pits. Does buying and restoring a 55 year old building to replace a 45 year old building (PSB), the interior of which has been recently and extensively upgraded, make good sense from a practical business perspective?   Were other options considered?  Can this project be brought in on budget or is there a risk that this project will become a public money pit with Winnipeg taxpayers footing bill? 

Frankly, a more thorough examination of the monetary and non-monetary reasons put forward by the Police Service and the Property and Development Department in support of this proposal is needed.  Is the space being redeveloped adequate to house all Divisions, Units, and services being proposed for relocation to the site?  Is relocation of units such as the Professional Standards Unit within the confines of a police station appropriate?  Are the operational advantages and savings cited in the report real or are they empty words used to prop up the proposal and make it easier for decision makers to arrive at the ‘right’ decision?   

Those issues and questions as well as others will be examined in future posts.

In the meantime, a quick memo to Sponsor Winnipeg:  Now that the City owns the building at 266 Graham, best to put it on the naming block, and consider removing the Winnipeg Square Parkade in light of the fact that the City has already paid someone $400,000 in commissions to sell that particular property.

* Image of Post Office Tower from the City of Winnipeg website at:

http://winnipeg.ca/interhom/headquarters.stm

** Complete report on the City acquisition of the property at 266 Graham Avenue is available at:

http://winnipeg.ca/clkdmis/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=9721&SectionId=&InitUrl=

Racial Bias Exists in the Toronto Police Service

Does Racial Bias Exist within the Winnipeg Police Service?

Proposition 1     Racial bias exists in society at large.

Proposition 2     Police agencies hire employees that are representative of society.

Conclusion          Some police officers hold racially biased views.

The question should not be,” does racial bias exist?” but rather, how prevalent is it and how does it affect the delivery of police services to the citizens of Winnipeg. 

The first step in effectively dealing with racial bias in police agencies is recognition from the very top of the organization that it exists.  No organization is able to take effective steps to address an issue until it first recognizes that the issue exists.  If a police chief does not recognize that racial bias exists within a police service, then there is no need to address it.  Racial bias is not an issue that lends itself to change percolating up from the bottom of the organization.  It requires decisive leadership from the top. 

 As recently as 2002, then Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino took the position that racial bias did not exist within the Toronto Police Service.  The police union followed up with a $2.7 billion class action libel lawsuit against the Toronto Star. * Seven years later current Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair not only recognized that racial bias exists within the Toronto Police Service but also recognized that racial profiling is a problem.   

The recognition by Chief Blair that racial bias exists within the Toronto Police Service demonstrates true leadership.  It makes it easier for other police chiefs to admit the obvious.  If racial bias exists within the Toronto Police Service it’s hard to imagine that somehow Winnipeg and other major Canadian police agencies are immune. 

In Toronto, Chief Blair has followed up with action that has created positive results in the area of female and visible minority recruitment and hiring. The hiring of women and visible minorities has increased dramatically.  Recruit classes used to have from 10-15 percent female and visible minority representation.  Women and visible minorities now account for 30-40 percent of recruits in typical recruit classes.   The Toronto Police Service has also invited the Ontario Human Rights commission to conduct a review of its policy and procedure. 

Some measures that the Winnipeg Police Service might consider to improve race relations and address the racial bias issue are:

  • Public recognition that racial bias exists within the Service and a commitment from  the top to address it;
  • Employ innovative recruiting strategies to boost the hiring of members of minority groups;
  • Revamp the mandate of the existing Race Relations Unit, and staff it appropriately;
  • Provide meaningful training and education on racial bias and racial profiling at all levels of the organization;
  • Develop partnerships with minority communities;
  • Fully investigate all race related complaints and demonstrate that race motivated misconduct will not be tolerated;
  • Develop a partnership with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission and invite a review of the Service’s personnel policies and procedures;
  • Form research relationships with the two local Universities and engage in proactive research to establish the extent of racial bias within the Service and approaches to address it.

 

*The lawsuit was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada which upheld a previous Ontario Superior Court decision.