Case compelling for independent police board

Coun. Randy Donauer made a compelling argument last week against letting unelected board members take control of the Saskatoon board of police commissioners.

In the end, though, he relented and decided that despite his belief in democracy and accountability, the perception that police operate free of political interference emerged as more important.

Coun. Zach Jeffries and Coun. Bev Dubois also said they decided to throw their support behind a proposal to add two more civilian members to the board despite earlier misgivings.

City council will almost certainly pass a revolutionary proposal to grant unelected board members a 4-3 majority on the police board, replacing the current 3-2 majority held by council members.

It might even pass unanimously.

The move marks an intriguing start to the tenure of Mayor Charlie Clark, who sits on the board but made clear early he had no intention to serve as chair.

That contrasts drastically with his predecessor in the mayor’s office, Don Atchison, who won election in 2003 in part by promising to end an experiment that elevated a civilian to the role of board chair for the first time.

Saskatoon’s mayor has traditionally served as the chair of the police board, so it was an important symbolic move — and a bit of electoral foreshadowing — when the board voted to replace Atchison with an unelected resident in January 2016.

Atchison won the first of four straight mandates in 2003 by promising to restore the public’s shattered faith in a Saskatoon police department rocked by scandal.

The Saskatoon Police Service has enjoyed about a decade of relative stability under the leadership of Chief Clive Weighill, hired in 2006.

The stability makes it the ideal time to try a different model. Other Prairie cities like Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton already feature civilian control of their police boards, so precious is the perception that police operate outside the realm of political influence.

So how independent would a civilian-dominated police board really be from city council?

Council still appoints the board members and decides whether or not to renew their tenure on the board. Board terms last one year and extend to a maximum of six terms.

If board members stray too far from what council believes is acceptable, council can replace them. So while changing the balance of power on the police board might change perception, council will still be picking the nonpoliticians who occupy the board.

The qualifications for the position, as outlined in the 2009 governance policy, include “commitment to the vision, mission, values and strategic goals of the board.”

This suggests conformity to police-board-think is one of the requirements for appointment to the board, but isn’t the board the body that is supposed to steer policy on policing?

As confusing as that seems, the entire qualifications as set out in the policy seem vague enough so that anyone could be barred from joining the board or getting their term renewed.

Would a resident who supports street checks — like Weighill does — be allowed to join the board? Will that question be asked of applicants?

Clark, for one, made clear his opposition to random police stops or carding during his election campaign.

Dubois asked that a “skills matrix” similar to those used to screen applicants for provincial boards and committees be developed. That seems like a sound idea.

While stressing his respect for the two current board members who do not serve on council, Donauer effectively demonstrated they are not as accountable to the public as politicians.

Donauer recounted how he regularly receives phone calls and emails from residents and noted voters can toss him out if they don’t like the job he’s doing.

The case for an independent police force seems obvious, but so does the need for better rules governing who gets on to the board and who stays there.

Otherwise, this move seems more about the perception of independence than reality.