Tag Archives: Winnipeg police

Can a Police Helicopter Make Police Pursuits Safer

The short answer is yes, if it gets there on time.

In a recent article the expert on all things related to helicopters and photo radar AKA Winnipeg Sun columnist Tom Brodbeck again painted a picture for us on how peacefully vehicle pursuits in Winnipeg will end once the police Service has its helicopter.

It seems that every time there is a vehicular pursuit in Winnipeg that does not end well someone in the media makes sweeping statement about how this could have been avoided had the Police Service had its helicopter.  Police vehicle pursuits often end in collisions some with tragic consequences.  There is no doubt that with the presence of a helicopter some tragedies might have been avoided but a caveat needs to be attached.  The caveat is:

  • Had the helicopter been airborne at the time of the incident.

With an optimistic projection of 1000 flight hours per year the Winnipeg police helicopter will be airborne an average of 2.73 hours per day, that just under 12% of the time.  It becomes obvious that unless the police can convince auto thieves to only lead police on car chases during the hours the helicopter is in the air, the vast majority of chases will still need to be addressed using conventional methods.

An examination of vehicle pursuit data in Antonio Texas obtained by the San Antonio Express-News under the Texas Public Information Act revealed some interesting facts:

  • The San Antonio Police Department makes every effort to deploy a helicopter to all police pursuits.
  • Half of all chases end in 3 minutes or less.
  • In San Antonio the helicopter is able to assist in about one-third of all police chases.
  • Two thirds of the time the helicopter was either not in the air or tied up on other calls.

By the way, San Antonio has a fleet of four helicopters.

My original estimate that police in Winnipeg might be able to achieve a 12 per cent attendance rate may have been overstated.

The question that needs to be asked is not only how pursuits are ended but rather why they are initiated.  In a recent study titled Police Pursuits in the Age of Innovation and Reform (2008) available at http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=IlJDjYrusBc%3D&tabid=392 the authors Cynthia Lum and George Fachner concluded that once the decision is made to initiate a pursuit in 72 per cent of the cases the outcome (in terms of how the pursuit ends) is almost entirely out of the hands of police.

This underscores the importance of having a sound pursuit policy that places realistic restrictions on the circumstances under which police will pursue a vehicle.  Secondly it underscores the importance of ensuring the pursuit policy is complied with.

Because police pursuits can result in tragic consequences they should not be undertaken lightly.

Maintaining the Public Respect

Some Short Term Pain for Long Term Gain

A recent column by Kevin Engstrom in the Winnipeg Sun caused me to reflect on an earlier post  dealing with the issue of police retaining the respect of the public.  It fits in well with Sir Robert Peel’s second principle which says:

To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

Retaining the respect of the public is best achieved through openness, transparency and accountability.  If the police set and apply a different standard for dealing with members of the Service than would apply to a member of the public, the Service is well on its way to sliding down the slippery slope  of ethical decay and abandonment of their sacred public trust.

Some police agencies actually have a specific section in their media policy that deals with the release of information as it relates to police members who are charged criminally.  In most instances these policies require immediate release of information such as the officer’s name, rank, years of service, the charge as well as the officer’s current status with the Service.    That removes the temptation  to withhold information or any  attempt to ‘time’ the release so as to mitigate what the organization might see as negative media coverage.  In the long run the public support and respect garnered through openness and transparency  far outweigh any potential negative consequences.  The public is generally willing to accept that there will be limited instances of criminal activity by police officers.  They do, however, want to be assured that such behavior will not be tolerated and will be dealt with quickly, openly and fairly.  In other words:  that the police service is prepared to clean its own house.

Based on  Mr. Engstrom’s example, the Winnipeg Police Service would not appear to  have the appropriate media release policy in place, that is, one that requires immediate release of  pertinent information when an officer is charged.  Conversely, if they do have such a policy but are choosing to ignore it, then their behavior is  beyond merely ‘ethically sketchy’.

Either way, it’s a problem.

The below link is to Mr. Engstrom’s column.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/columnists/kevin_engstrom/2010/05/29/14188396.html

A Lack of Operational Planning

Through a woeful lack of planning the Mayor and the Chief of Police keep managing to create a sense of urgency on funding police initiatives. First they managed to create a near panic about helicopter funding. Then they attempted to do the same with cadet funding stopping just short of calling the Province deceitful.  I’m starting to get used to the two of them standing together speaking with once voice, joined at the lip so to speak berating the Province. 

It may be time for the province to advise the Mayor and the Chief of Police that a lack of planning on the part of the City and the Police Service does not automatically create an emergency for the province. 

Perhaps its time for the City and the Police Service to put the things they are actually planning to do in the Business Plan and the Captial Budget.  If they did, and  then shared the document with the Province everyone would have a heads up on whats coming.  This would be helpfull for the Province especially as it relates to programs the City wants them to fund. 

An examination of the City’s Departmental Business Plans best exemplifies the City’s  lack of planning.

In 2008 the Police Service created and published its 2008-2010 Business Plan.* That document outlines the goals for the police service for the three-year period, and lists the strategies it will be using to accomplish its goals.

One would think that somewhere in that document one would find a reference to the Closed Circuit Television Cameras the mayor had installed in the downtown area. Surely they could not be funded and installed unless it was a police priority and identified as such in the business plan. Well they were not part of the business plan yet they were purchased and installed. Look up sometime when you are downtown. You’ll see them and even if you don’t, they will “see” you. 

Okay, maybe that one slipped through but surely the helicopter was part of the long-term business plan, or if not part of the business plan then in the capital budget. Wrong! Have a look at the 2008 and 2009 capital budgets. The helicopter does not appear there either.

Surely the reintroduction of the cadet program was part of the business plan. Wrong again!

If none of these initiatives were identified as priorities by the Police Service through the business planning or capital budget process, how did they get on the action agenda? It begs the question: whose agenda is being implemented? Does the agenda reflect the operational needs of the Police Service or the political needs of the Mayor in an election year?

 Perhaps I wrongly concluded at the outset that there was a lack of planning at City Hall and the Public Safety Building. Perhaps there is planning taking place it’s just that it’s political not operational.

*   http://winnipeg.ca/cao/BusinessPlanbySvc.stm

Winnipeg Police Physical Fitness – Part III

Making the Argument for on duty workout time

(This was originally intended to be a 3 part series but has now been extended to 4)

 If you are the police union and you want the City to give you something you must first establish that there is a need and secondly, how it will benefit the city.

The recent attempt by the Winnipeg Police Association (WPA) to get the City to give  police officers on duty time to work out was based primarily on the argument that criminals are coming out of jails bulked up and more fit than in the past. The answer according to the WPA is to grant police officer on duty time to work out so they can match the fitness level of the criminals they deal with.

Unfortunately the union failed to provide data to support their position. Although the data probably exists in terms of prisoners weight and musculature upon entering and leaving prison it’s not likely anyone can access it. The union might have considered making its case using other data.  If indeed there is a trend, historical data on assaults against police officers, injuries sustained by police officers resulting from physical confrontations, and Workers Compensation claims would assist in factually establishing what is happening on the street. Making a blanket statement that bulked up criminals coming out of prisons is putting police officers at greater risk  is not a convincing argument without  supporting data.

To support its position the union  brought forward examples of other western Canadian cities that are granting officers on-duty work out time. They mounted a political argument in a context where political arguments (as opposed to evidence based arguments based on data) are ineffectual. They can’t really be blamed though for trying this approach. They just saw the Service use the same approach and obtain funding for a helicopter from the City.

During the helicopter debate the Service  relied heavily on political arguments and anecdotal examples to support its position. The Service cited other cities that use helicopters as a basis for why Winnipeg should get a helicopter. They relied on various quotes from police officers in other cities about how  a helicopter in the air equated to a large number of officers on the ground to bolster their argument. It seemed this was particularly appealing and persuasive for the mayor. 

However, this is not a two-way street. The City decides which issues will be allowed to sail through city hall with an assisting political tail wind, and which will be held up to scrutiny. The Service’s helicopter proposal was largely political (based on wants not needs) but the Service had a benefactor who provided the tailwind. A true economic business case was not asked for nor provided.

That won’t be the case in this instance.  The union  will be required to make a business case (an economic argument) to support its position on the paid work out issue.  They will be required to provide evidence, data, hard facts not just anecdotes. It’s definitely more difficult to make your case when as Bob Seger says you are “running against the wind”.

The last post in this series will look at the  approach the union took on this issue and will examine the differences between positional and interest based bargaining.

Winnipeg Police Physical Fitness – Part II

The potential cost of the proposal by the Police Union in real terms

During the helicopter debate I discussed the concept of opportunity savings which in that context dealt with the number of officer hours that the introduction of a new tool or technology might free up.  The saving comes in the form of an opportunity to redeploy officers for a period of minutes or hours to a new duty from the duty they previously were engaged in.  Such redeployment is referred to as opportunity spending.  

In both the opportunity saving and spending scenarios the bottom line in terms of budgeted spending remains static.  Change is instead reflected in the activities in which the officer’s time is invested.  In order for the equation to remain truly static an opportunity saving must be created  before opportunity spending can be contemplated. 

The recent attempt by the Winnipeg Police Association (WPA) the union representing police officers in Winnipeg to get the city to agree to paid workout time as part of their regular shift is an example of opportunity spending.  

The union would argue that it is a no cost item as officer salaries (and the salary budget) would not increase.  From the union perspective it is simply a matter of time reallocation from regular duties such as uniform patrol or investigations to time spent working out in the gym.  They would argue that there is no real ‘loss’ to the city.  From the union perspective the city would be swapping patrol time for officers who would in turn be more fit and effective during the times they are on the street.  

Because the union proposal did not contain any ‘savings’  to be invested, there would be a significant cost to the city in terms of time diverted from regular policing duties to work outs.  For union/management bargaining purposes, this body of time needs to have a dollar value attached to it.   From the city’s perspective the starting point would be to calculate a dollar value based on a scenario where all eligible officers availed themselves of the benefit at every opportunity.  For the purpose of this discussion let’s look at a scenario where all 1328 officers employed by the WPS (based on the authorized 2008 complement) chose to take advantage of either a 20 or 30 minute paid workout period during each shift worked.     

The maximum amount of  time that would be consumed if all officers were granted 20 minutes to work out per days would be roughly 64 hours per year per officer.  Multiplied by the total number of officers that works out to approximately 84,000 thousand hours.  That is the equivalent to removing 40 officers from the street for a full year.  Add to that the 20 minutes of accumulated time that would be taken by the officer and the ‘street absence’ doubles to 168,000 hours or the equivalent of 80 officers per year.  

Under the 30 minutes per workday scenario it would work out to 96 hours per officer,  representing a total of 60 person years that the city would give up and once the additional time off taken by officers is factored in, it works out to losing the equivalent of 120 officer years of street duty.     

These calculations are based on the presumption that all officers work 10 hour shifts.  The fact is that many officers work 8 or 9 hour shifts.  For officers working the shorter shifts the cost would be significantly higher since they work more days per year and would therefore have more opportunities to avail themselves of the work out time.  The calculations are done on a worst case scenario from the city perspective, assuming all officers availed themselves of the work out provision at every opportunity.  The union  would argue that would not happen and that there would not be 100 percent uptake on the program.  They are  correct but in a scenario where you don’t know what would happen you need to establish what could happen (that is, the potential risk to the city).     

In dollar terms the opportunity spending cost of this proposal would be close to 2.95 million dollars for the 20 minute plan and 4.4 million dollars for the 30 minute plan.  This again is based on a worst or best case scenario (depending on your perspective) where each officer availed themselves of the workout period during each shift.  

The union’s position has consistently been that the city requires more police officers on the street.  It is difficult to mount a logical argument to expand the police complement when in the same breath you say that removing the equivalent of between 40 or 60 officers from active street duty would not negatively affect service delivery.

The next post in this series will examine the bargaining approach the union used in this instance and the difference between positional and interest based bargaining.

Winnipeg Police Physical Fitness – Part I

The cost of the existing police physical fitness program in Winnipeg

All Police officers hired since the late 1980’s are subject to a physical fitness standard as a condition of employment.  The standard which requires completion of drills and activities that simulate on the job activities such as speed, agility, endurance and strength must be completed within a fixed period of time.  Officers are tested annually.  Because progression through the various classes of Constable and promotion to higher ranks is tied to meeting the fitness standard, the compliance rate is high. 

Officers are further encouraged to meet the standard through an incentive program which gives officers who meet or exceed the standard 20 hours of time off annually.  Officers hired prior to the introduction of the mandatory program can enter the program on a voluntary basis and if they meet the standard, they too receive 20 hours of time off annually. 

If all officers availed themselves of this provision, it would result in the granting of 26,400 hours of time off annually.    At an average wage of $35.00 per hour, the dollar cost equates to just under 1 million dollars a year.   

Other fitness incentives for police officers offered by the City include gymnasiums in the Public Safety Building as well as in the other four District Stations and the Police Academy.  The City pays for the space, heating/cooling and general maintenance of these gymnasiums.  Much of the equipment was purchased by the Police Union and the ongoing maintenance and replacement of equipments is covered by a dollar a week levy that is assessed to all users.  The facilities located in operational police buildings are open 24 hours a day. 

The City also pays the cost of fitness passes to other city owned facilities such as the Sam Southern complex, The Pan Am Pool, the Cindy Klassen Recreation Centre and others for officers who prefer these facilities to a conventional gym.    The City also picks up the salary cost for the physical fitness coordinator. 

The overall cost to the city is in the range of 1 million dollars. 

Based on the recent attempts by the Winnipeg Police Association (the union which represents police officers in Winnipeg) to negotiate paid workout time through the media (a request which was denied), the union is clearly of the view that officers are not as fit as they should be. 

Subsequent posts will look at the cost of what the union was asking for and their approach to bargaining.

Operational Funding for the Winnipeg Police Helicopter

The following is Clause 1 of the Standing Committee Recommendation which deals with the funding of operating costs for the proposed Winnipeg Police helicopter which was approved by Council in January of 2010. 

That subject to approval of new incremental funding from the Province of Manitoba for all ongoing annual operating costs, estimated at $1.3 million in 2010 plus cost increases thereafter, the Winnipeg Police Service be directed to procure a fully equipped Flight Operations Unit together with a hangar to house the unit.  (Emphasis added is mine) 

Several key words are highlighted.  The first is all.  In his attempt to spin this scenario to  best advantage, the Mayor has talked about being agreeable to limiting increases to an agreed upon formula such as the cost of living or consumer price index.  On the surface that may sound reasonable, however, it only limits increases in expenditures to a percentage above the amount spent in the previous year.  It does not prevent the introduction of new expenditures.  The agreement binds the province to all ongoing annual operating costs.  The province would incur  full liability for expenditures it has no control over. 

This approach can be likened to the ‘we’re talking about less than 40 thousand dollars’ argument.  The mayor is essentially borrowing a line from the used car salesman’s handbook:  it’s the ‘if you are willing to spend $1.3 million, surely you’re not going to let this deal get away for a mere 40 thousand’ line.

The point that can not be ignored is that the province is being asked to enter into uncharted waters.  One question that needs to be asked and answered is, how firm is the estimated operating cost figure?  Why does that become important?  Because, based on the wording of the clause passed by Council, if the estimate is off by a couple of hundred thousand dollars the province will be on the hook for that as well. 

In the context of financial agreements and contracts ALL is a very inclusive term and can be a very expensive word.  And to top it all off, the phrase plus cost increases thereafter leaves the door wide open to additional expenditures that could be billed to the province.   The wording is much to loose.  A very careful, detailed and in depth examination of what is included in the estimate of $1.3 million for operating costs is clearly in order. 

To further bolster his argument, the mayor has pulled out and played the ‘lives are at stake’ card.  The fact is, that can be said about almost everything involving policing.  Police policy and procedure on vehicle pursuits, response to domestic violence, and use of force and a myriad of other issues can also put lives at risk – perhaps much more so than having or not having a helicopter.  But none of those issues are currently on the political radar nor are they likely to the subject of discussion as people cast their ballots in the civic election later this year.  The helicopter, on the other hand, is very much on the political radar.  In a political forum using an argument such as ‘lives are at stake’ can be  successfully employed as a  tactic because it strikes a chord with the public.  It is also difficult, if not impossible, to quantify or to either prove or disprove.  How can anyone argue against a move if failure to make the move could cost lives?  One can only hope that citizens (the electorate) see though this sort of gamesmanship and demand decisions and outcomes based on the merits of the issue versus the use of slick political spin tactics and rhetoric.    

If the city is not confident enough in its estimate of operating expenses to commit itself to a firm funding number they need to go back to the drawing board and rework their estimate.  Further, if they are not confident that the addition of a helicopter will produce at least enough savings to offset inflationary cost increases in the future years, then one might conclude that the rationale behind the entire proposal is flawed.  This is a classic ‘buyer beware’ scenario.  The buyer in this case is the province, which means all of us.

Only as Much Force as is Necessary

The Constitution Act of 1982 (The Charter of Rights and Freedoms) guarantees basic individual rights.  Those rights include the right the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

In order to avoid anarchy and for society to function, the right to life and liberty are not absolute.  The Criminal Code gives police (and in some cases citizens) the authority to suspend the rights of persons who have violated the law.  The authority granted to police is wide-ranging and invasive.  It includes the authority to use deadly force and the authority to arrest. 

Along with this authority, come obligations and restrictions police must meet and comply with.  In order to lawfully arrest, police must have reasonable grounds to do so.  Reasonable grounds have been defined as a set of conditions or circumstances that cause an ordinary prudent individual to form a strong belief that goes beyond mere suspicion.  If resistance is encountered during the arrest process, police are given authority to use force.  The amount of force police use must be reasonable.  The law stipulates that police shall only use as much force as is necessary to carry out their lawful purpose. 

In the context of police making an arrest, this means that unless the arrest is lawful, any use of force cannot be justified.  In the case of a lawful arrest, the degree of force must be in keeping with the resistance that police encounter.  Most police departments have extensive policies that outline their use of force policy.   

In the recent case that has garnered so much media attention involving the arrest of Cody Bousquet, there is no doubt that police had the authority to arrest.  The question that must be addressed is whether the amount of force used in making the arrest was appropriate.  Could police have accomplished their lawful purpose, that purpose being to arrest Mr. Bousquet, using less force than was used, without putting themselves in danger?    

By now many have viewed the surveillance video presented in court last week during Mr. Bouquet’s trial.  Police actions on the video have been interpreted in a variety of ways.  My purpose here is not to add my interpretation to that long list.  The incident is currently under investigation by the RCMP.  The outcome of that investigation will be presented to the Crown’s office and a determination will be made if the amount of force used by police exceeded what was necessary.  In the event charges are deemed to be warranted, the officers involved will be required to appear in a court of law to justify their actions.    

The real issue that needs to be addressed is this: There are indications that the Winnipeg Police Service became aware of this video approximately a year ago. As the incident involved the Chief’s nephew, again, there is a high degree of probability that the Chief was made aware of the video and its contents.  When the video became a matter of public record last week the Winnipeg Police Service wasted no time arranging for an external investigation to be undertaken by the RCMP.  The issue then is this: why was that investigation not undertaken a year ago when the Winnipeg Police Service first became aware of the contents of the video? 

Had Mr. Bousquet quietly plead guilty and had his lawyer not brought the video forward, would the Winnipeg Police Service have asked the RCMP to initiate an investigation?  After sitting on the video for a year, it doesn’t seem likely.       

For those of you that don’t remember what happens when the Police Service does not take the appropriate steps to fully investigate the actions of its members, can you say ‘J. J. Harper’?  Can you say ‘A.J.I’?

Outcomes Based on Evidence

If the  outcome is known in advance don’t fool yourself into thinking you are doing research.  

When police agencies are considering the deployment of new technology, new tools or innovative service delivery approaches, it’s not good enough to cite their use in other jurisdictions as justification to replicate them.  Unfortunately, all too often that is what happens.  Mayors and police chiefs look at what other jurisdictions are doing and fall into the ‘cookie cutter trap’, an approach that assumes that if something works in another jurisdiction it will work here as well.  A review of reports from the jurisdictions that are doing what you might like to do or emulate is substituted for real research.  The conclusions and anecdotal accounts contained in those reports are treated as evidence.    

The fact is, what works in one jurisdiction may not work elsewhere.  Consider the  use of bait cars  to address auto theft.    Some cities that use bait cars claim they are the answer to curbing the auto theft problem.  This may be true if the cars being stolen in a particular jurisdiction are high-end vehicles destined for export.   When the strategy was tried in Winnipeg, it was largely based on recommendations from police agencies in other jurisdictions and the company selling the technology.  Following the expenditure of a significant amount of cash it was determined that based on the unique characteristics of the auto theft problem in Winnipeg, as well as the  climate, bait cars were largely ineffective in Winnipeg and the program was discontinued.    

Another example is the ‘lets recreate Edmonton in Winnipeg’ experiment of the mid-1990’s that saw the proliferation of Service Centers, Community Offices, and Foot Patrol Offices under the guise of community policing, Edmonton style.  At the height of the euphoria (some called it madness), the Winnipeg Police Service was attempting to staff as many as 22 public access locations at a cost of millions of dollars.  These included 6 District Stations and 16 satellite offices.  With the departure of the  Chief (who was from Edmonton) most of those offices were quietly closed down.  The Police Service now operates a total of 7 public access locations, 5 District Stations and 2 satellite offices.  This is another example of a failed and very expensive experiment that can be attributed to the cookie cutter trap. 

Examples abound of failed attempts to superimpose apparently successful approaches and technologies from one jurisdiction to another.  

As argued during the helicopter debate (which was more of an announcement than a debate), evidence based approaches are essential.  In the case of the helicopter, determining  its effectiveness and efficiency from an evidence based perspective involves at a minimum the following steps: 

  • Establish the number of hours the helicopter will be airborne
  • Establish the number of hours that the helicopter will be on stand-by
  • Determine the type of calls for service to which the helicopter will be deployed
  • Call up the historical call for service data
  • Superimpose the deployment template over the historical data
  • Determine the number of instances the helicopter would have been deployed
  • Establish a cost per deployment
  • Establish the benefit or added value that the presence of a helicopter would have provided in the instances where it would have been deployed. 

Take vehicle pursuits as an example.  Police collect data on vehicle pursuits which include the number of pursuits per year, broken down by month, week, day of the week and hour of day.  There is also data about how long pursuits last.  

It would not be difficult or time-consuming to take the historical pursuit data, superimpose the anticipated helicopter flight times and  specify with a reasonable degree of certainty  the number of pursuits that a  helicopter would have been available to deal with in 2008.   

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Winnipeg has 100 vehicular pursuits per year and that the average pursuit lasts about 4 minutes.  This means that unless the helicopter is airborne it will arrive too late to be of use.  Based on an optimistic projection of 1000 hours of flight time, that means the helicopter would be available to aid in perhaps a dozen vehicular pursuits annually.  That’s one a month.  And based on experience in dealing with auto thieves in Winnipeg, I’m not convinced that in those dozen cases the thieves will stop the stolen vehicle, get out and lie on the ground, and wait to be arrested as has been suggested,  just because a helicopter is hovering overhead.  

This means that every time we have a pursuit in the city that ends badly and someone gets up on their soap box and says ‘it would have been different if we had a helicopter’ you need to take a big gulp of reality and say ‘it might have been different perhaps 12 percent of the time’.  The other 88 percent of the time the helicopter would have been sitting on the ground. 

It is research and data that bring reality to the debate.  It is data that elevates it from a political discussion to an evidence based debate and a decision-making process based on evidence 

Anyone who suggests that the recent council decision on the helicopter issue was an example of evidence based decision-making either does not fully understand the concept or has allowed their personal bias on the issue to cloud their judgment.   Anecdotes and rhetoric are not evidence.  

Winnipeg is a city with limited resources.  Our tax dollars need to be spent wisely.  Look at the spending of tax dollars like an investment.  Do we want our tax dollars invested with a money manager who does not do his homework, who does not do research, who simply looks at what other money managers are doing and attempts to mirror their investments and then crosses his fingers and hopes for the best?  

I suppose if you are not a Winnipeg resident and your  municipal tax dollars are going to East St. Paul  this may be less of an issue for you.   For the citizens of Winnipeg, however, it is a real issue.

A Dragons Den Scenario

The long-awaited $75,000.00 helicopter report hit the table of the Standing Policy Committee on Protection and Community Services on January 11th 2010.  Despite the fact that it has been in the works for over six months, it was late in getting there and required a suspension of the rules in order for it to be considered by the Committee.  

Let’s try to imagine for a moment what the discussion would have looked like if the Winnipeg Police Service (WPS)helicopter proposal had been brought before the popular television show, “Dragon’s Den”, instead of Standing Committee:  

WPS: “Good morning Dragons. The WPS is seeking approval for the creation of a Flight Operations Unit.  Other people wiser than you (with access to lots of money) have already decided it’s a good idea and have set aside 3.4 million dollars in the capital budget to purchase a helicopter and build a hangar.  Even wiser people (and with even more money) are looking at funding the 1.3 million dollar annual operating cost of the unit.”   

Dragon 1: “So let me get this straight.  You are not here asking for the money.  You are actually asking us to sanction the creation of a Unit within the Police Service so that you can then spend the 3.4 million dollars that has already been set aside?”  

WPS:  “Well yes, the decision has already been made but if you sanction the creation of the Unit it will make it easier for us to talk the Province into giving us the 1.3 million dollar annual operating cost.”  

Dragon 2:  “Just so that I understand – the City will incur a one time expenditure of 3.4 million for a helicopter that has a life span of, say, 10 years and the Province will pick up operating costs of between 11 and 15 million dollars over that period?”   

WPS: “Well… I guess when it comes right down to it, yes, that is what the numbers say.” 

Dragon 3:  “That sounds like a pretty sweet deal for the City.  How do you plan on talking the province into that one?”  

WPS:  “Once we get your approval it shouldn’t be too difficult.  Since the Province announced a willingness to negotiate a funding agreement in the Throne Speech, we’ve already got one foot in the door.  Besides, this isn’t an economic decision, it’s political.”   

Dragon 4: “You’re in the wrong place; you should be next door in front of Standing Committee on Protection and Community Services.  We only deal with proposals that involve a potential positive return on investment.  Our concern is the bottom line, not politics.”  

Dragon 5:   “But seeing as we have reviewed your proposal, why don’t we ask you a few questions.  It might be a good learning experience for you in the event you ever have to sell a proposal on its economic merit; you know, a proposal that involves an actual cost /benefit analysis.  Why don’t we pretend you are asking us for the money and we’ll ask you some of the questions we would ask people who ask us to invest our money in their proposals.”   

Dragon 1:  “That’s a great idea.  I’ll begin.  Your report says that a helicopter has the potential to save the Police Service money.  You mention reducing the amount of damage caused to patrol units during vehicle pursuits which right now is costing you $400,000.00 per year.  How much do you anticipate you will save in that area alone?” 

WPS:  “We haven’t actually come up with a number.” 

Dragon 1:  “I’m sure you must have looked at the vehicle damage costs in jurisdictions that currently operate helicopters.  You must know what their costs are.  How much could you save – 50%?  Say, $200,000.00?” 

WPS:  “Well perhaps, but we really haven’t run the numbers on that.” 

Dragon 1:  “You should have.  I’ll tell you what; I’ll give you 3.2 million dollars if you agree to make up the remaining 200 thousand from your existing budget based on anticipated savings.  Deal?” 

WPS:  “Actually, we were not planning on using existing budget to fund any of this cost – we were hoping to get all new money for this.  We are not prepared to put any real dollar savings on the table.”  

Dragon 1:  “And for that reason, I’m out.” 

Dragon 2:  “Maybe I can make a deal with you.  In your report you mention a number of scenarios that could yield opportunity savings, in terms of freeing up patrol units.  It you can show me a detailed report that shows projected flight times, a list of the types of incidents that the helicopter will be deployed to, and an estimate of the potential opportunity savings in terms of hours and how those savings will be invested, I’ll fund you.”   

WPS:  “That report has not been prepared yet.” 

Dragon 2:  “For that reason I’m out.”  

Dragon 3:  “Let’s try to make a deal on investing opportunity savings from another angle.  You indicate that the Service is involved in approximately 1,825 ‘containment’ operations annually and that having a helicopter would free up patrol units to perform other duties.  You also mention several other scenarios where patrol units would be freed up.  Here’s my deal:  You make an estimate as to the total number of hours of patrol time that would be freed up service wide, and use that amount of time as an opportunity saving to attack the chronic issue of slow response times to high priority calls by setting a goal for response time reduction, and I’ll give you the money.”  

WPS:  “We can’t do that because we have not run those numbers and are not prepared to commit ourselves to measurable goals that could be difficult to achieve.”     

Dragon 3:  “And for that reason I’m out.” 

Dragon 4:  “I was going to go down the research road and ask you about cherry picking quotes from studies that support your position.  Research is intended to present both sides of the argument on the issue being researched.  I’m no longer convinced that is your interest.  The last quote at the bottom of page 10 says it all and I’ll just paraphrase here:  ‘Don’t think of a helicopter as a tool to achieve specific results, think of it rather as a nice thing to have in and of itself.’   

“I’m out.” 

Dragon 5:  “What about me, don’t I get a shot at this?” 

Other Dragons:  “Go ahead.” 

Dragon 5:  “I don’t think this is going to fly.  I’m out.” 

Back to reality:  The WPS has brought their proposal before Standing Committee on Protection and Community Services.  It was quickly rubber stamped and sent on to EPC.  There, another rubber stamp is poised to apply the ‘approved’ label.  Then it’s off to council for a vote by the same group that already tucked the 3.4 million into the capital budget.     

And next,  its off to Broadway.  

What would happen if the Province offered to buy the city a helicopter and made the City responsible for the operating costs?  Isn’t that how deals between different levels of government are usually structured?  The senior level provides capital funding, the level delivering the service covers the operating cost.