Police board cites privacy for change
Final 2018 meeting moved to avoid antagonistic exchanges Police board chair Andy Pringle cut deputations from five minutes to three.
Amid outraged cries from the public gallery, the Toronto police board twice paused its meeting Tuesday then finally opted to move to a private room inside police headquarters — a move the civilian panel said was necessary “due to the unfortunate behaviour of a few individuals.”
The monthly meetings inside the Toronto police auditorium have become increasingly antagonistic, with board members and members of the public butting heads, often during heated deputations that go over the five-minute time limit.
As board chair Andy Pringle opened Tuesday’s meeting, he outlined the rules of conduct during the meetings, including respecting the time-limit for deputations.
Then, stating there was “a large number of deputations today and a large agenda,” Pringle said the board intended to decrease the time for deputations from the usual five min- utes to three, a last-minute change that immediately prompted shouts of protest.
More than 30 deputations were scheduled to be held on a variety of agenda items, including a request by Toronto Community Housing Corporation to nearly double the number of special constables approved to patrol its properties.
As cries from the gallery persisted after the board approved the three-minute cap, Pringle reiterated it was within the board’s power to make the change.
“It’s not about whether you have the right to do it, it’s whether you want to hear us or not,” said journalist and activist Desmond Cole.
“You seem not to want to hear us.”
After twice pausing the meeting, the board ultimately moved the meeting to another location within Toronto police headquarters.
From there, the meeting was live-streamed online and broadcast into the police auditorium, but no members of the public or media were present and no one could make dep- utations.
In a statement Tuesday evening, the board said it had been “looking forward to hearing from the community” but said the meeting could not go forward in the auditorium due to “improper conduct” that “impacted the ability of the board to proceed with the meeting and to hear what the public had to say.”
Moving a public meeting to a closed location with “webcast capability” is something that has periodically occurred during other City of Toronto meetings, the statement said.
“The board regrets that its public meeting was forced to be moved in this way due to the unfortunate behaviour of a few individuals. As always, the board will continue to encourage input from the community,” it says.