By Stanley Tromp, editorial, Vancouver Sun, 13 Dec. 2005
___________________
Police boards were established in British Columbia in 1893 on
the basic principle that
appointed civilians and elected officials -- not the police
-- should guide policing policy, as well as seek the views of
the community and report
back to it on crime and security issues.
Police openness fosters public
trust, while secrecy can
foster fear and suspicion.
Under section 69 of the Police
Act, the Vancouver Police Board must hold all meetings in public, with only four
topics the board "may" (not must)
place in closed sessions.
These arise when disclosure
could "seriously impair" (not slightly impair) security or law
enforcement; matters of a
person's personal or financial affairs (and only if this person's interest
outweighs the public
interest); labour negotiations and management; or
information that a person requested he or she could present to the board in private. Nothing else.
But for years, as far back as
I know of, the VPB has been discussing many
other items in closed meetings, in apparent breach of the
Police Act: Its budget and
finances, amendments to the
police procedures manual, a
briefing on the public
complaint process, private vehicles used on department business, time allowance
for meals, monthly statistical reports, aboriginal hiring, Justice Wally Oppal's diversity issues report, a laundry contract report,
the purchase of portable radios, VPD policy on
striking people's knees, the
board's own code of ethics, agenda calendar,
public relations policies, and so on.
Legality aside, there is a
question of common sense:
What real need is there to discuss all these topics in secret?
These problems were confirmed
two years ago in a valuable 200 page report by the B.C. Justice Institute on police board
management (www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/police_services/publications/index.htm ).
It said, "A significant
number of police board members [and police union officials] expressed concern over the tendency to shift more and
more discussion to in camera sessions. This seeming lack of transparency does little to
build public confidence in the
governance process . . . . Unfortunately, not all boards appear to be following the legislation in terms of what they move to in camera
meetings."
The report added that
"several [B.C. police]
board members observed that
their public meetings are carefully scripted and that the real discussion takes place in camera."
The police may object that some subjects beyond those
prescribed in the Police Act are too risky to
publicly disclose. For example, at its in camera
meeting on June 15, the board "received a briefing
on the recruitment of schoolchildren into the sex trade." Yet parents
have an urgent need and right to know about this tragedy, promptly.
There is a solution:
Carefully separate the
matter into public and private sessions, rather as courts do in their
procedures. First, in the
public session, the VPB and
public can be briefed on the
scope of the problem in general terms.
Then, in private session, other parts that are truly confidential could be
discussed, such as undercover methods or identified suspects and victims.
We can disregard government's
complaints that dividing a topic so would entail too much "labour," because if one asked for written records on
that matter through an FOI request, the
VPB (as it routinely does) would separate and white-out the exempt portions from the non-exempt and send the latter to the applicant; the same principle can be applied
to oral presentations, which are often read aloud from a text anyway. The publication of more topics might even assist the police, if citizens read of the
subjects and step forward with new information.
For five years, I have made
Freedom of Information Act
requests to the VPB for
minutes of its lengthy in
camera sessions, and received almost nothing in return. Yet in partial reply,
last June the board began posting headings of its in
camera meeting topics and decisions on its internet page
(www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/police/
policeboard/MeetingMinutes.htm), which is a good
start.
There is another quandary of public access. Most VPB
meetings occur in police
headquarters at 2120 Cambie Street, where all
visitors must sign in and wear tags, then be escorted by armed police up an elevator to the seventh floor, then down a
corridor to a small boardroom with too few chairs.
"By making visitor
badges mandatory, the
message, 'you don't belong here' is subtly conveyed," the Justice Institute report
said. "For some community members, including some new Canadians, the very act of entering a police building is
unnerving." The report
urged boards to hold most
meetings offsite.
As well, most of the public seem unaware of when meetings are held; the VPB needs to advertise widely, such as in the free community events
listings of various local
media, and in various languages. Most B.C. police board
members said they thought their work is mainly invisible to the community, the Justice Institute report
noted.
It praised the VPB's website, but also
advised the board to issue a public annual
report of its work, and
invite more public submissions.
We regrettably recall the style of former VPB chair, mayor Larry Campbell, a
former RCMP officer, who forbade any board member but himself to speak to the media, and at one recent meeting (in full Da Vinci’s Inquest mode) called
reporters "sharks" and expelled them from the room after 20 minutes.
It is to be hoped that the new mayor, Sam Sullivan, who
doubles as the de facto VPB
chair, will be the new
broom that sweeps clean, will set a good tone for the rest of
his term, and will open the
board more to the public in his first meeting
on Wednesday.
_________________________
P.S. Ten years after this editorial, I noted a hopeful sign in my book The Vanishing Record, on needed reforms
to the B.C. Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act. http://www.canadafoi.ca/thevanishingrecord.pdf
“B.C. FOIPP Act
Section 12 exempts the “substance of deliberations” of local public bodies, but
here, unlike with cabinet, it is hopeful to see that progress is possible, as
the following example will attest.
“In 1999, I made a request to the Vancouver Police
Board for the agenda and minutes of its in-camera meetings. It was denied in
full, with the Section 12 “substance of deliberations” claim. I appealed, and
in Order 00-14, the Commissioner rejected the VPB’s claim and ordered many of
the records opened, including agenda headings. The Board later explained that
it had inherited its traditions on meetings from years past, and had simply
followed them without reflection.
“Then, after its careful consideration of the Order,
everything changed. Fewer issues were placed into closed session discussions
and more into open meetings, and today the Board even proactively posts
portions of all its closed meeting agendas online. I have never before in B.C.
seen such a major reversal in attitude and practice on an FOI issue than this -
one that I wish all public bodies would follow.”
-
S. Tromp