Re: Civilian panel is best judge of police, city told, April26.

I support Ottawa Police Services Board vice-chairman Jacques Legendre in his quest for some transparency in the investigation of complaints by the public against the police.

I learned how police complaints are handled in Ontario due to an unsuccessful complaint to this civilian commission against a police force (not Ottawa’s) made by my family on behalf of a member suffering from a severe depression before committing suicide a few years ago.

The process was very secretive and one-sided. All submissions were made in writing by mail and there was no opportunity for anyone making a complaint to have any access to key evidence in the police files or to raise questions in person.

The final report did not even contain the names of the commission members who issued it, only the name of a contact person who, as we learned from a newspaper article, was a police officer. The report reiterated the findings of the local police force’s internal investigation; there was no acknowledgement of the errors, inconsistencies and evasions which had been pointed out. The fact that the police had not kept proper records, contrary to regulations, was used to exculpate them.

Reading the report left me, as the family member of a statistic, with a profound sense I powerlessness. I am not surprised that so few complaints against the police succeed; find it remarkable that any do.

Transparency will only be important if the goal is to allow citizens a means of holding the police accountable for their actions.

Louise D. Stephens, Ottawa
 

Police secrecy spurs mistrust
Jeff Spooner
The Ottawa Citizen

Monday, April 29, 2002

Re: Police secrecy comes under fire, April 24.

If the police force of this city is to maintain the excellent reputation it has earned, it must work quickly to rectify the aura of mistrust when it comes to complaints.

Since legislation doesn't prevent the force from providing summaries of complaints, and noted experts suggest that the force be more forthcoming with information, it would seem to be imperative that it respond favourably to this request.

Vince Westwick, general legal counsel to the police force, said that if police were to do so, "it would be at their own peril." This raises the issue of whose rights take precedence: an officer who may or may not have have lived up to his or her duties as a member of the police force, or the public that employs these officers.

By "stonewalling" on this issue, the force's public-relations efforts will suffer a tremendous setback. At a time when government institutions are under scrutiny, police forces should assess the mood of the people and respond accordingly.

Jeff Spooner,

Kinburn