Police hide in cone of silence

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/03/2015 (3849 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Devon Clunis can be congratulated for being both progressive and making progress with the Winnipeg Police Service he inherited.

But in the absence of a valid reason, waiting three months to release a Crown opinion on the conduct of two police officers who chanced upon, but didn’t detain Tina Fontaine days before she was slain, suggests our police chief hasn’t made enough progress in an area he easily could: timely and full accountability.

And what goes with that.

Public trust. Oh yes, and media trust, too. Case in point: Last month, on Feb. 18, I emailed the police public-information office a straightforward question: “… Has the police service heard back on the Crown opinion that was sought over the conduct of the officers… ?”

Police responded with these words: “There is no new information or updates at this time.”

Now we know there was new information as far back as December. That’s when they received the Crown opinion I inquired about last month.

Late in the day Tuesday — timing consistent with the way police seem to do things on this file — the public information office finally issued a news release. The Crown would not be proceeding with criminal charges against the field-training officer or the recruit he evidently was showing how Winnipeg police do things in real-street time.

But, police also went on to report one officer had been suspended without pay and the other would remain on administrative leave pending internal disciplinary hearings.

Tuesday’s emailed news release on that, sent at 4:49 p.m., avoided the inconvenience of a news conference where police might have to answer uncomfortable questions spontaneously and on camera.

The news release ended, instead, with these dismissive, if predictable, words: “At this time, no further details will be provided as it is inappropriate to provide details of the regulatory investigation.”

Well, I had some questions for them anyway on Wednesday.

Why did the Winnipeg Police Service give me misleading information about the Crown opinion — “There is no new information” — when there was new information?

That one they justified, or attempted to, in an emailed answer.

“Although the WPS was in possession of the Crown opinion at the time of your inquiry, we were not in a position where any information could be publicly released …”

They said they were reviewing the Crown decision.

If they had explained that fully, and transparently, we could have lived a few more months waiting for the answer. But, instead, police were curt, dismissive and, for whatever reason, less than honest in their original response.

Maybe there is hope, though.

The police service Clunis seems focused on making more progressive has issued a job posting for a “manager of public affairs.”

A civilian position, for “an exceptional communicator” with “an excellent understanding of how to effectively identify and resolve communication issues.”

We will see how that turns out. In the meantime, Wednesday, I had another question for Clunis et al.

“When — if ever — will we learn more about what the police officers knew the day they had contact with Tina Fontaine?”

I’m not the only one who wants to know. Wednesday, when I spoke with Tina’s great-aunt, the one who raised her, she also called for Clunis to be more open about the case against the two officers.

“I want him to let us know what really, really happened,” Thelma Favel said.

“I would like to know if things would have been done different. If things would have been done differently if she was not aboriginal… if she would have received more help.”

She said we all have a right to know the details of what happened that night.

Later Wednesday, Clunis responded to an emailed question asking if he believes the family — and the public — have a right to know more details about the case.

I wasn’t even asking about right now.

I meant does Clunis believe that basic right exists?

He went straight to the script about the ongoing disciplinary hearings.

“It would be inappropriate,” he wrote, “to comment further at this time.”

The public-information office added this glimmer of hope: “As the matter progresses, we may be in a position to provide further information.”

We may. Or we may not.

My concern is police will continue to bury the case against these two officers in a shroud of secrecy that cloaks that bureaucratic cemetery officially known as the human resources department.

Meanwhile, Thelma Favel waits.

And each day she looks at the painted portrait of Tina she was presented with last month by artist Gord Hagman and now hangs in her home.

“Every day I’m in the presence of Tina,” Thelma said. “And I get to talk to her and say good morning and good night. And she still just looks at me. It’s beautiful.”

That’s how Thelma waits for answers. While the Winnipeg Police Service continues to run silent, run deep.

And damn the media depth charges.

gordon.sinclair@freepress.mb.ca