Police board spins facts

There is a solid explanation, and there is spin, which happens when facts are processed through a public-relations filter, and enhanced. It’s important to understand the difference as the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board sorts out what to do after the suspension of Chief Frank Elsner.

Elsner has been off work, but on full pay, since December. There have been complaints into allegations of misconduct.

The allegations have not been substantiated; the investigations have not been completed. We will get the full story in due course.

There are reasons why Elsner’s pay should be stopped, and reasons why his pay should be continued. That decision is up to the police board.

But please, please, no more spin. Give us the straight goods. No more stretching the facts to suit the case. That just undermines the board’s credibility.

The board issued a statement about Elsner’s pay on Friday. It said, in part:

“The Police Act provides that any police officer who is suspended in this province is presumptively entitled to receive full pay and allowances during the period of the suspension. This is subject to the Police Board’s power to decide whether there are strong reasons in the public interest to conclude that the suspended police officer’s full pay and allowances should be discontinued.”

Wait a minute — the Police Act does not use the term “strong reasons.” That was added by the police board.

A few days earlier, the board declared that “The Police Act provides that, except in exceptional circumstances, a suspension of a police officer is with pay.”

The Police Act says nothing about “exceptional circumstances.” That was also added by the police board.

For the sake of clarity, this is what it says in subsection 5 of the Police Act:

“If at any time the board decides that it is in the public interest, the board may require that a suspension under subsection (1) be without pay or may discontinue the pay and allowances of the member under suspension.”

When the police board tries to bolster its case by adding terms like “strong reasons” and “exceptional circumstances,” it is trying to spin the truth.

Why do that? Why not just give the taxpayers a simple explanation for continuing to pay Elsner $17,000 a month? Why does the board feel it is necessary to exaggerate?

What do we need? Real reasons based on facts. Until we get them, every citizen would be wise to discount anything that comes from the police board.