Stars aligned for modernizing Toronto police
Twenty-four proposed reforms leave impression modernization not just possible, but desirable
This is Toronto’s best chance in a generation of reforming the police service. And, what do you know, the perceived guardians of the status quo will have to be the change agents.
Chief Mark Saunders, on the job for just over a year, and reluctant police board chair Andy Pringle, who buried identical reforms until he was forced to acknowledge them, introduced the 24 recommendations to the media last Thursday — surrounded by key members of the so-called transformational task force.
In style and substance, mannerisms and methodology, words and phraseology, they left the impression that modernization of the police is not just possible but desirable. If former deputy Peter Sloly were the chief making these reasonable recommendations, backed by former board chair Alok Mukherjee, the pair would have been portrayed in apocalyptic terms. Police union head Mike McCormack would now be foaming at the mouth, not just musing lamely about “job action.”
But what do you say when the agents of change are your allies, the people who gave you a fat new contract, who kept your perceived enemies at bay, who supported and propped up the current system that has so feathered your nest? And if you turn on them, where is there a better deal?
As surprising as the proposed reforms are — stamped with the approval of Saunders and Pringle — the report is a natural outflow of a confluence of people, politics and events. The case for change is so obvious, the timing so propitious. Frankly, it’s now or nothing for a long, long time.
Speaking for the task force members, Michelle DiEmanuelle captured the moment, calling it “an unprecedented alignment of public, (police) service, government and leadership” where “new leadership creates new opportunities.”
Saunders and Pringle didn’t just wake up one morning and see the light. They were pushed and prodded, beaten over the head with facts, and shown the inevitable wisdom of the changes. Most importantly, they realized there were so many opportunities and so few risks.
It is not insignificant that task force members such as former Toronto budget chief David Soknacki and community advocate Idil Burale (one could name others) who entered the exercise skeptical showed up at the news conference enthused about the potential.
There would be 300 to 450 fewer officers three years from now — a reduction through attrition, as no new officers would be hired. But cops will be doing less — freed of non-core responsibilities such as managing crossing guards, handing out tickets, patrolling the TTC.
As many as six divisions could be merged or closed. Instead of being tied to geographical areas rooted in a division, officers will be loosed to move more quickly to crime hot spots — at least in theory. And TAVIS, the controversial anti-violence intervention strategy, is toast after this summer.
The changes will be easier because the main players are new — unfettered by past grudges and battles, free to try and fail. New chief, new board chair, new mayor, new premier, all but two police board members new.
The key leaders have synergy. They’re from the same political camp or allies in recent policing strategies, failed and successful.
The members of the task force making the recommendations are formidable — well-informed, experienced in this kind of work, credible, relentless.
They were invited to propose changes, they know where the bodies are buried, they seem to have developed the chemistry and working relationship that can unstick stubborn resistance.
The public is ready. Taxpayers have watched the police budget climb above $1 billion, even as crime continues to slide. They are prepared to pay for policing, but wonder why expensive, highly trained officers are writing traffic tickets, doing transit patrol, managing crossing guards and standing on the corner guarding pylons at construction zones. A $100-million budget reduction is tiny on such a mammoth budget, but taxpayers will welcome the savings.
The ideas for reform are not new, not revolutionary and appear sensible and doable. They have been proposed in numerous reports — some of them authored by task force members. Consulting firm KPMG proposed as much in a 64-page report last year. Pringle dismissed it as “an internal think” document. “Random suggestions aren’t necessarily something that we report back on,” he said.
Mayor John Tory gave police a cushy contract and wage increases when other public and privatesector workers were busy granting concessions just to keep their jobs. Now, the mayor is backing a call to reduce the number of police officers.
McCormack, the union head, apparently promised to look at shift scheduling and paid-duty reforms in exchange for that fat contract. Now, while posturing and threatening job action to protest the cuts to the complement of officers, McCormack will be isolated and eventually accede to the modest reductions — 300 to 450 officers over three years, through attrition.
Chief Saunders is ostensibly the choice as top cop because — unlike Sloly — he was not musing about a smaller, more efficient force, changes to police culture, reforms to TAVIS, improved race relations and modernizing the force. He was the union’s choice. The mayor and Pringle made sure he won the job. He is not in a position to balk at the reforms now.
Put together, there is a strategic alignment of the stars, it seems, a kind of confluence of events and circumstance that rarely occurs.
If not now, maybe not for a long time. Royson James usually appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Email: rjames@thestar.ca