Policing & Politics
Chief Danny Smyth
Just because something is interesting to the public does not mean it is in the public interest.
I was having a discussion with a colleague the other day about when police leaders should comment on things that happen in our community. I’ll come back to this point later.
There has always been an element of politics in policing – especially at the executive level. In most cities in Canada, police services are governed by Police Boards. By their very nature, Police Boards fall into the political realm as they are comprised of elected officials and/or political appointees.
In Winnipeg, for example, there are currently seven members on the Police Board (although the Police Board by-law allows up to nine): two elected City Councilors (one of which sits as Chair as nominee for the Mayor), three members appointed by Council, and two members appointed by the Provincial government. City Council has the option of appointing up to two additional people. The Police Services Act allows for half of the members to be councilors.
Pursuant to The Police Services Act, as Chief of Police, I report to the Police Board and am accountable for the enforcement of law, the prevention of crime and the preservation of public peace in the city. Additionally, I am responsible for the management, administration and operation of the police service in accordance with the priorities, objectives and policies established by the Board. However, the Act clearly states that the board cannot give orders or directions on specific operational decisions, individual investigations or the daily operations of the police service.
There is a clear divide between directions by the board that set rules for police generally, which are acceptable in a democracy, and directions for the chief to act in a particular way in a specific case or to act against a particular person or group of people, which are not. The Chief of Police is selected specifically because they have the required competencies, skills, education, knowledge and expertise to make operational decisions.
To this end, I regularly provide reports to the Police Board on the Service’s performance and operations, including:
An annual business plan with quarterly progress reports
Reports on the service’s budget performance
Reports on my activities
An annual statistical report
Audit results and reports on policy implementation
During a Police Board meeting, there are a number of issues that are discussed; for this document, I will expand on three of the main categories that are the focus of most meetings and a fourth that comes up from time to time:
WPS Budget and Finances – The Police Board recommends and allocates the police budget, while City Council approves the police budget. With annual expenditures of nearly $320M, a considerable amount of time is spent accounting for the budget. On the revenue side, there is considerable interest in the photo enforcement program and the performance of the units involved in traditional traffic and speed enforcement. While there is no quota for photo and traditional traffic enforcement, revenue projections are a regular part of quarterly budget reporting and are based on past performance. The COVID pandemic and other factors impacted our ability to accurately project revenue from photo and traditional traffic enforcement.
The restrictions imposed during the pandemic impeded normal traffic flows, the number of construction zones suitable for photo enforcement and the extended winter road conditions affected the number of traffic infractions that have been issued; in turn, this has impacted revenue.
Strategic and Business Plans – The Police Board is responsible for the strategic plans of the police service – generally in a 3 to 5-year cycle. The police service then develops an annual business plan to report the strategic goals’ progress to the Police Board. This can range from community partnerships like the Indigenous Women and Girls Safety strategy to workplace safety and wellness initiatives that demonstrate a healthy organization.
Risks and Audits – like any large organization, we are subject to risks and audits. Considerable time is spent identifying risks and taking steps to mitigate them. For example, at present, the police operational budget has been identified as a risk largely because of our political environment. We are weeks away from a civic election that will introduce a new mayor and change the makeup of City Council. This could result in a change in the direction and priorities of the city. We will get a good sense of that when the new council approves the 2023 budget. Hence the reason it has been identified as a risk. (Although, in this case, nothing can be done to mitigate the risk, it is a recognition that political change could potentially impact the WPS).
Another budgetary risk that the service managed during the pandemic was the police pension. In 2019, City Council decided to reform the police pension plan. The proposed reform resulted in considerable savings of over $30M over the multi-year balanced budget. Those savings were never realized; the Winnipeg Police Association (WPA) filed a labour grievance challenging the City’s decision to make changes without their agreement. An arbitrator ruled in favour of the WPA. This resulted in a budget shortfall because the City had already reallocated the projected savings to other areas. To make up for the shortfall, the WPS was directed to find savings in the operating budget. In the 2021 budget, for example, the WPS was directed to find $5.1M in savings, in addition to $1M already allocated in the budget. Through vacancy management strategies, the decline in overtime, and incremental revenue from Special Duty, the Service barely managed to realize the $6.1M in savings by the end of 2021.
Extraordinary Events – occasionally, events garner a great deal of public or political attention or have extraordinary costs associated with them (sometimes both). These events warrant a special notification to the Police Board and often a follow-up private meeting. Two extraordinary events were managed this year:
1. The COVID Omicron variant hit our front-line officers hard at the beginning of the year. We responded by executing our business continuity plan to ensure adequate resources were available to meet the needs of the community and the Collective Agreement obligations. The Police Board and the city’s Chief Administrative Officer were notified in advance and briefed about the plans. Significant overtime costs were incurred to meet staffing levels.
2. The Convoy Protest near the Manitoba Legislature was the other event that warranted notification and briefings to assure the Board that our response was appropriate and well planned. This event brought extraordinary political and media attention because of what was occurring across the country.
The City of Winnipeg has a legislated responsibility to pay the costs required for adequate police services to be delivered. Still, the reality is that the provincial government has jurisdiction over policing throughout the Province of Manitoba. As such, there are regular meetings with officials at Manitoba Justice, who are led by the Minister of Justice - an elected official.
Often opportunities are sought by Manitoba Justice to collaborate on issues that impact public safety. Illegal guns and gun violence are examples where police and politics align for a common cause. The support of the federal and provincial governments has allowed the service to establish a Firearms Investigations and Analysis Section that has enhanced our ability to investigate and trace the origins of the firearms we come into contact with during criminal investigations. Ongoing funding has been made available for equipment and staffing, resulting in hundreds of crime guns being seized and traced globally.
In fact, a number of tools and training provided to the police are supported through funds administered by the Criminal Property Forfeitures (CPF) Unit which falls under the direction of the Minister of Justice. Since the inception of the CPF Unit in 2009, tens of millions in funds have been distributed to police and community groups for public safety and crime prevention initiatives.
Sometimes things are not congenial. At the start of the pandemic, the service was cut off from direct lock-up access to the Winnipeg Remand Centre with no consultation. This negatively impacted police operations and created tension between the then Minister of Justice and me. While I regret that some of this played out publicly through media reports, in the end, there was a compromise when Manitoba Justice agreed to fund renovations within our Central Processing Unit to accommodate the change in policy.
As I stated earlier, there has always been an element of politics in policing. This is the reality of public safety that is funded by various levels of government. It is not a bad thing so long as there is mutual respect and civil discourse. The nature of policing and politics usually takes place in private. Public accountability and transparency occur regularly at scheduled public meetings and government announcements. At least, that’s how it used to be.
The past six or seven years have brought a changing dynamic. Social media provides a platform for anyone to voice their views on any subject. Politicians are increasingly influenced by social media and are using it to drive public discourse. Some are skilled at using social media to promote community activities or policies they support. Others act irresponsibly, calling out individuals or organizations in disrespectful and deliberately provocative ways. This negative use of social media has created new challenges, as often these types of statements are noticed by the media, who then ask for and expect a response.
Once again, we watch politicians like Donald Trump use social media to disparage the federal police (FBI). His use of social media has changed the political landscape –in my view, not in a good way. Whether intentional or not, more politicians are using social media platforms to communicate directly with other social media users, including mainstream media. We also see media in the United States push to have information released publicly that never would have been previously considered. The integrity of investigations and the safety and security of those involved in those investigations may be at risk.
As the Chief of Police, part of my day involves engaging with my Public Information Team to triage what inquiries to respond to. We do our best to be accessible and transparent. Just because something is interesting to the public does not mean it is in the public interest. This nuance is often lost on many. It becomes a judgment call about responding to things truly in the public interest versus something that has salaciously gone viral on social media.
So when should police leaders comment on things that happen in our community? My answer is simple, when it’s for the greater good of the public, not because politics is at play. One thing is certain; regardless of what we choose to do, there will be those who will be upset or dissatisfied.