Police Act needs an overhaul

There is an Alice in Wonderland quality to the ongoing drama surrounding Victoria’s suspended police chief, Frank Elsner. From warring public bodies to a seemingly endless investigation, things grow curiouser and curiouser by the day. Early this year, police complaint commissioner Stan Lowe announced his office had found evidence to support several complaints against Elsner. These included allegations the police chief harassed female staff, and that he sent inappropriate Twitter messages to the wife of a subordinate. None of the allegations has been proved.

Some of the complaints were deemed sufficiently credible to justify a disciplinary hearing.

After the RCMP finished investigating, the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board asked for Lowe’s files to determine what disciplinary steps it should take. As the oversight body for all policing matters in the two municipalities, this was a reasonable request to make.

However, Lowe said he could not release some information the police board needed. That resulted in the board announcing it would seek a writ of mandamus in court, compelling Lowe to turn over his files.

Then another problem emerged. Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson of the B.C. Supreme Court ruled Lowe had no business in the first place investigating two of the complaints.

The commissioner disagreed, and is taking that decision to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

So now we have two court cases, an 18-month slogging match in which Elsner’s life is on hold, and public bodies at war with each other. Meanwhile, taxpayers are on the hook for the chief’s $206,000 salary while he’s under investigation.

In fairness, the root of the problem lies in an oversight process that makes no sense — indeed, that invites confusion. First, there are two agencies with overlapping jurisdictions — the commissioner’s office and the police board. That never works well.

The governing legislation — the Police Act — is needlessly ambiguous. The commissioner does indeed have the right to withhold information from the police board.

But the act also permits him to release such details as he deems in the public interest. Surely it is in everyone’s interest that the civilian body overseeing a police force should be kept fully informed about matters affecting its most senior officer.

A two-part solution is needed. First, all disciplinary matters involving top-ranking officers should be handled by a joint panel composed of staff from the commissioner’s office and members of the local police board. We cannot continue with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

Moreover, there are 11 municipal police departments in B.C., each with its own board. If nothing is done, the potential for more of the same is evident.

Second, the Police Act requires a serious redraft. As it stands, the legislation reads more like a charter for hushing things up than ensuring transparency.

There are several sections that allow disciplinary investigations to be kept under wraps, at the discretion of the commissioner. These should be dumped.

By all means, make provision for protecting the privacy of innocent parties, or indeed of everyone involved, if the allegations prove baseless.

But where it is determined that a senior lawenforcement officer has acted inappropriately, and if the behaviour in question is serious, there are no grounds for secrecy.

Now that the courts are involved, it seems inevitable that the Elsner drama will drag on, at huge cost to the public purse. In case the agencies involved have forgotten, taxpayers are footing the legal bill for this prolonged and unseemly squabble.

If nothing else, serious shortcomings have been revealed in the disciplinary procedure for senior police officers. Whichever party wins May’s election, an overhaul of this chaotic system should be an early priority.