Police chief ignored public opinion in armoured vehicle purchase

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 10/12/2015 (3559 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It was a misunderstanding. That’s the official version of how Winnipeg police Chief Devon Clunis defended the purchase of a $343,000 armoured vehicle with no public discussion. But it feels like a fast one got pulled on the police board, city hall, taxpayers and the public in general.

Chief Clunis ought to have known buying the Gurkha, as it is called, required notice to the Winnipeg Police Service’s civilian oversight body. Yet the full police board has still not been officially informed of the purchase by the chief.

In mid-November, board chairman Coun. Scott Gillingham saw on the city’s material management website that the WPS had bought the armoured vehicle, after “someone brought it my attention.” The website notes bids closed Sept. 8 and the contract was awarded to Terradyne Armoured Vehicles for $342.825 on Oct. 21.

Mr. Gillingham called a special meeting of the board’s finance committee where the police chief explained he believed he didn’t have to notify the board. The chief has authority to spend up to $500,000 for operational purposes, and he believed this fell within the rules — WPS fleet purchases initially come out of its operations budget and are capitalized later.

Mr. Clunis engaged in too much rationalization. An armoured vehicle is an important capital acquisition; the WPS has now agreed purchases of $100,000 or more will go to the board ahead of time.

That, however, falls short of the lessons to be learned about accountability. The Gurkha signals a dramatic move in the creeping militarization of police tactics, protocol and culture. It is a policy decision that affects the service’s relationship with the public. It needed public input.

Led by Mr. Clunis, the WPS tells the public it wants to work with Winnipeggers, the neighbourhoods and citizen groups to “serve and protect.” And an armoured vehicle might be justified. Clearly, officers believe it is needed to keep them safe. And Winnipeg is merely joining the tail end of a parade, as many Canadian cities have had armoured vehicles for years.

But by keeping it off the discussion table, Mr. Clunis is saying all those policy and budgeting discussions are none of the public’s business.

(ImageTag)

The board has told the chief to bring back better information on the rationale for the purchase, where the WPS sourced the funds and annual budget implications, along with the full protocol for its use. The board’s finance committee got no cost-benefit analysis for the vehicle, nor any documentation of how useful they have been in other jurisdictions. In some cities, armoured vehicles have collected dust in police garages, but some of those were donated by the National Defence Department.

It is expected the vehicle will be used by the special tactics units when serving high-risk warrants and in armed standoffs, or to rescue civilians. Mr. Gillingham said regular reports on its use will be expected.

Mr. Gillingham played it pretty close to the vest when asked about whether, among the many financial considerations, this was the wisest purchase for a police budget straining taxpayer resources. He said he and his colleagues feel the chief is in the best position to assess how to keep his officers, and Winnipeggers, safe.

Public trust balances on the respect for community discussion about how police go about doing their job. Police brass should be prepared and willing to justify bulking up an arsenal in service of the public. This gets at the heart of how local policing, which protects a community, differs from a military, which defends a country.

Mr. Clunis deliberately chose to ignore the views of Winnipeggers by putting an armoured vehicle on their streets. Why should they believe his assurances are key to keeping the city safe?