Why De Caire rules the roost

Hamilton Police Services Board is too lax, too deferential

Watching this year’s police budget unfold was an eye-opener for many people, including me.

When it began back in November, I knew city council was trying to hold all budget increases as close to zero as possible, and I knew Chief Glenn De Caire had a reputation for being something of a bulldozer.

What I didn’t appreciate was how lax the governing police services board was in providing oversight.

Now I fully understand why Councillor Sam Merulla wants the province to overhaul the Police Services Act, the governing legislation.

A paramilitary organization with a $140-million budget — some 88 per cent of which is for wages and benefits — is simply not getting the essential scrutiny Hamilton taxpayers deserve.

I’ve never covered a police board meeting before this year’s budget. The main reason I took an active interest was because crime columnist Susan Clairmont was on special assignment, and so I stepped into the commentary gap.

The board is made up of seven members: Three provincial appointees — chair Nancy Di Gregorio, Irene Stayshyn, Madeleine Levy — and three members of council — Mayor Bob Bratina, Bernie Morelli, Terry Whitehead. The remaining council appointee is in the process of being filled following Jim Kay’s resignation in January.

I’m not going to pull my punches. I was appalled by both the deference and easy ride the majority of the board members gave the chief.

Set aside the issue of whether De Caire needs to hire new officers or whether he simply refused to redeploy his current complement. I’m talking about the absence of basic principles of civilian oversight.

I’m used to reporting and commenting on city council meetings where councillors take a much more active, watchful and responsible role with department heads and senior managers. Questions are asked, assumptions challenged, operations probed, explanations required, recommendations suggested, directions given.

With the exception of Whitehead and Morelli, I didn’t see anything remotely like that from board members. De Caire’s arguments were simply accepted at face value.

Though this was my first exposure to the board, I’m told by colleagues with prolonged police and board experience that this is par for the course. Whole meetings can go by without the appointees or Bratina asking any pointed questions.

Interestingly, that changed marginally as tensions over De Caire’s budget request grew and the public became more engaged.

But it tells you how much De Caire actually rules the roost when veteran journalists are astonished to suddenly hear even softball questions and comments coming from normally muffled mouths.

I’m sure all the appointees are dedicated, attentive and concerned citizens. But to properly fulfil their duties, they need to step things up. They need to challenge the chief, not in a confrontational manner, but in a constructive way.

In the same way Bratina tipped his hand with his post-election “detail schmetail” comment, Di Gregorio showed hers when she was first elected chair in 2011. “You don’t come in as chair to make changes; you come in to make absolutely sure you work closely with your chief, that you support your chief,” she said.

That appears to be the guiding philosophy among four of the six sitting members. They point to the Police Services Act mandate that the board is “responsible for the provision of adequate and effective police services in the municipality.”

And they cling to the provision that the board “shall not direct the chief of police with respect to specific operational decisions or with respect to the day-to-day operations of the police force.”

What they also need to do, however, is spend more time exercising the full reach of their authority and be something other than inside bystanders.

In his critical report to the Toronto Police Services Board on the G20 summit in 2010, retired judge John Morden noted the act places no limit on the type of information the board can obtain from the chief, including operational information.

The act doesn’t prevent boards asking questions, offering suggestions or making operational recommendations to the chief. Any and all restrictions along those lines come from one place only — board members themselves.