Transparency key when officers arrested

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 30/11/2017 (2880 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

“The Winnipeg Police Board exists to improve transparency and accountability in policing… and ensure policing in Winnipeg lives up to citizens’ needs and expectations.”

— City of Winnipeg website

On Wednesday afternoon, the Winnipeg Police Service — the presumed experts in planning for emergency situations — encountered a crisis Chief Danny Smyth handled like a bomb he didn’t know how to defuse.

And worse, it may have also been a crisis that was, in part, of his own making. 

The background — all too well-known — is important to review.

Last month, Const. Justin Holz was charged with impaired driving causing death and leaving the scene of an accident. That was followed by the news the officer’s breathalyzer exam had been delayed for several hours and two other cops had been suspended and were under investigation by the Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba.

The police watchdog IIU was set up as a result of another infamous case and a fatality years earlier, that involved a drunk city cop and a botched investigation.

Then Sunday, there was another arrest of another city police officer. But police only acknowledged it when the media asked about it Monday. 

Which brings us to Wednesday, when — on what felt like emergency short notice — Smyth finally addressed the cases of two more city cops facing impaired driving charges. And the suggestion he brought up himself — but denied — about a lack of transparency on the part of the police service he leads.

How short was the notice?

At 11:29 a.m., the WPS media office responded to my request for details about the impaired driving arrest from Sunday by saying the questions formed part of the investigation. The media office then added police were expecting to release more information “in the next day or so.”

Less than an hour later, “due to numerous media inquires,” the police announced Smyth would be available for questions at 1:30 p.m.

Before the news conference was called, the plan appeared to have been to release information about the Sunday incident — but not the drunk-driving arrest of an off-duty WPS officer by Headingley RCMP that happened more than a week earlier. 

Curiously, that incident was only added to Smyth’s agenda after the Free Press received a tip about it on Wednesday and emailed police asking if it was true.

So what took Smyth so long to reveal the information, given public concerns over how police handle police drunk-driving cases? 

We’ll get to that, but first something else that may suggest why Smyth called the news conference so abruptly.

Shortly after 8 a.m. Wednesday, I texted Winnipeg Police Board chairman David Asper. This was before the second case had been reported, of course, but following an earlier conversation with Asper about the civilian oversight board’s prescribed responsibility “to improve transparency and accountability” through its relationship with the police chief it hires.

My text read: “Have a question regarding today’s front page story about another alleged drunk-driving case involving an off-duty police officer. In your role as chairman of the police board — and in the interest of public confidence and WPS transparency — will you be following up with Chief Smyth and asking him why he didn’t announce the arrest of the officer Monday? As you may know, the news only came out because of media inquiries.”

“I need to get myself up to speed on this,” Asper responded.

Then, referring to the board’s narrow role with police, he went on to say the issue may be something he will discuss with the chief, but only after consulting with colleagues on the board.

What I didn’t know at the time — and wouldn’t until Smyth announced it at the news conference — was Asper was already “up to speed” on both of the new charges. Smyth had informed the police board, city administration and the IIU.

That was a revelation.

So was Smyth’s answer to a question about the public not being added to the list; he said he knew drinking by police is a “sensitive” subject that “resonates” with the public.

Smyth added he understood that.

Maybe, but then he fell back on police protocol instead of common sense. He said it’s not police protocol to release the names of people arrested before they are formally charged and appear in court. 

At this point, the names aren’t the issue, though. It’s timely transparency and the public trust that matters. 

Transparency is supposed to be a cornerstone of his service, I reminded him at the news conference. Then I told Smyth I was troubled by how he had automatically informed the police board, the city administration and the IIU.

But hadn’t automatically informed the public.

Smyth went back to saying the charges would have been released when they were formalized.

To which I suggested — given what he alluded to about the public’s sensitivity to the issue of drunk-driving cops — he should be reviewing that protocol. I suggested again that transparency is supposed to be what the WPS is about, and its police chief.

“Is that fair?” I asked.

“Yeah that’s fair,” Smyth agreed.

“Then,” I added, “the public shouldn’t be left with the impression that you’re not being transparent.”

So in future, when a police officer is arrested for drunk driving, will he let us know? “Or will you wait till we find out, and then let us know?”

“I guess the answer to your question is I’m right here today. I am right here in front of you, right now before these charges have been laid,” Smyth said.

But you weren’t Monday, I reminded him.

Then, I wondered out loud if the chief now thinks he should have done Monday what he finally did Wednesday.

“Perhaps,” he said.

Perhaps?

I would hope Smyth and the police service learned a lesson Wednesday about being transparent with and accountable to the public. 

And my sense of it is the Winnipeg Police Board and its chairman had more to do with it than the big bad media.

At least, that’s my hope.

gordon.sinclair@freepress.mb.ca