It’s difficult to find logic in police union boycott
The Ottawa Police Association’s boycott of public events to underline its feud with Chief Charles Bordeleau is baffling.
Union president Matt Skof was a no-show at last week’s Capital Pride parade. Not, you might think, in protest at the ban on uniformed police officers, but because of the association’s disagreements with Bordeleau. Indeed, Skof told the Citizen he would have boycotted the parade even if police uniforms were allowed. Participating, he said, would have given the impression that relations with the chief are good — and they are not.
“My relationship with the chief has not improved and there’s no reason to put that aside, put that on hold,” he said, and participate in the Pride parade. But it is not just Capital Pride. Skof did not attend the graduation ceremony for new police recruits earlier this summer for the same reason. Other events face the same threat, and it is difficult see how these boycotts serve the police or the public.
The police union obviously has long-standing issues with Bordeleau’s leadership, among them, a feeling that on disciplinary matters, the chief has a double standard — one rule for senior officers and another for the rank-and-file.
The latest flare-up erupted after Bordeleau decided to not suspend senior officers under criminal investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police over allegations of evidence manipulation and fraud made by Ottawa defence lawyer Michael Edelson. The case involved a 2014 tactical training explosion in Kanata that injured two officers and three paramedics. Skof criticized the decision, claiming that rank-and-file officers caught in a similar situation would be suspended. Consequently, Skof and his union executive severed ties with the
It is difficult see how these boycotts serve the police or the public.
police brass, refusing to attend non-mandatory meetings, community events or stand alongside senior staff at public events.
Skof acknowledges that as union leader, he has a role to play in the community, but says what’s at stake for his members is too important to ignore. He says essentially, the police uniform “is owned by the chief,” and showing up at public events with him aligns the union with the police service in a way that goes against the interests of his members.
The logic of these boycotts eludes me. Take graduation of the new recruits in June. Everyone’s graduation — whether high school, college or university — is a proud and memorable moment, and I imagine it is the same with the police recruits. Their graduation day, I take it, is an important moment in their lives, the fulfilment of a long dream. And yet, on such a momentous day, the president of the union they will soon join sees fit to boycott the ceremony because of a tiff with the brass.
Why is the union taking out its anger and frustration on the new members? How does the union not being there hurt Bordeleau? The association did hold a reception for the new recruits and their families, but it cannot be same as participating in the main event. The same goes for Capital Pride. The parade is a public celebration of the LGBTQ community and the affirmation of its hard-won rights. It is not a police event. It is not Bordeleau’s event. He is not the organizer. Bordeleau, like everyone else, an invited person, and yet Skof and the union boycott the event because they are unhappy with their chief. How does that make sense? Skof held a breakfast for the LGBTQ members, but why a private celebration when a public show of support is more meaningful?
Skof says the union is not budging on the boycott, and “as time evolves” will review the decision. Union members find these boycotts eminently reasonable, but to many of us, they are removing themselves from community engagement in a way that does them little good. At a time when police-community relations are frayed, the man who represents the rank-andfile should be seen more in public, not less.
The sooner the decision is reviewed, the better.