Ottawa Police Services Board failed to follow proper procedure in hiring interim chief after Sloly resignation, audit finds

The Ottawa Police Services Board did not follow proper Police Services Act procedure when delegated authority was given only to then-chair Diane Deans to hire an interim police chief during the "Freedom Convoy" protest, an audit of the Police Services Board's response found.

Three audits were requested in March 2022, shortly after the convoy protest was cleared out in a major police response on the heels of the Emergencies Act's invocation. Former city manager Steve Kanellakos had asked for an evaluation of the city's response and the Ottawa Police Services Board approved a motion to have Gougeon look at both the OPS's handling of the convoy protest and the police board's.

• Read the full Ottawa Police Services Board audit report here.

The board audit found that after Peter Sloly resigned as chief of police on Feb. 15, 2022, the board agreed to hire an external candidate to replace him on an interim basis, because of strain already on the command structure of OPS at the time due to the intensity of the protest and because of vacancies in executive roles.

However, it determined that while board chair Diane Deans was given delegated authority to contact and vet a limited number of candidates, the process was not adequately transparent nor properly staffed, as the Police Services Act requires a police services board to delegate responsibility to at least two members, not just one.

"While potential Interim Chief external candidate names were obtained and discussed in-camera with the full Board, neither the Human Resources Committee nor the Board was involved in the vetting process or establishing the criteria for selection," the audit concluded. "The Chair was delegated responsibility to contact a limited number of potential candidates; however, no evidence could be provided to demonstrate the extent to which this vetting of the candidates took place.

"In this case, there was limited transparency or ability for input/challenge in the selection and hiring of the external Interim Chief and the delegation of authority was not compliant to the (Police Services Act)."

During a raucous council meeting on Feb. 16, Deans was ousted and replaced as chair of the OPSB and several other members resigned. A separate audit into the city's response noted that several councillors acted outside their role with respect to police oversight, and could be perceived as politicizing the police service.

The auditor general recommended the board ensure sufficient due diligence in cases where a non-standard hiring process is employed and to ensure adequate transparency. Ultimate decisions should be delegated to at least two members of the board to be compliant with Section 34 of the Police Services Act and to allow for sufficient challenge of such decisions, she said. The board agreed with the recommendation.

OTTAWA POLICE DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO BOARD

The audit also found that the board did not understand its role relative to such a large event and that many of the issues the board had stemmed from a lack of information provided by the Ottawa Police Service itself.

The audit into the Ottawa Police Services Board said that the board sought legal expertise to support and guide them through the unprecedented protest that occupied downtown Ottawa for three weeks. However, it also concluded that the board was not given the proper level of operational information until much later in the protest's timeline.

The OPSB's major events policy requires that the board is informed as soon as is practicable when there is a reasonable possibility that the Ottawa Police Service may be involved in the policing of a major event and that the board is provided, at the earliest possible stage, with sufficient relevant operational and other information to allow it to understand details of the major event.

The audit found that despite significant intelligence concerning the major impact the coming protest would have, the chair of the police services board, Diane Deans, was only first informed about the Freedom Convoy by police on Jan. 24, 2022, five days before they arrived. Police had been planning for the convoy for about 10 days prior. This information was given to Deans after a regularly scheduled OPSB meeting during which no mention of the convoy protest was made. The full board wasn't notified until a day later, Jan. 25 and was further brief on Jan. 26 during a special meeting that was called by the chair.

"The Board Chair was notified January 24, 2022, and the full Board the following day, only three days before the convoy protestors were scheduled to start arriving in Ottawa, and twelve days after the OPS was first aware of the event," the audit found. "As a result, the Board’s ability to fulfil its responsibility of helping to establish the mission, objectives, and priorities of the event response was severely impeded."

The board was not briefed on the OPS operational plan for the protest, which had been established by the time of the special meeting on Jan. 26. The audit found that this would have required an in-camera session, which was not scheduled and which no board member requested.

"By not having a thorough discussion of the mission and priorities of the event, the Board was unable to fully meet the expectations of the Major Events policy in terms of its responsibility to consult on the mission, objectives, and priorities of the event," the audit found.

The audit said that it would not be until Feb. 17, after the resignation of Peter Sloly as chief of police, that the board would receive a detailed overview of operations, which described the final plan to remove protesters.

"During a major event, the Board cannot adequately perform its oversight functions unless it is provided with relevant and appropriate operational information as soon as the information is available. Timely sharing of this information from the Chief of Police to the OPSB is therefore crucial to the Board’s ability to carry out its role. As the Board was only provided with sufficient relevant operational information towards the end of the convoy protest, it was challenging to effectively perform their oversight responsibilities and ensure adequate and effective policing throughout the major event," the audit concluded.

"More specifically, without the operational details the Board was requesting, they would not have been able to ensure that operational plans were consistent with the mission and objectives of the major event."

RECOMMENDATIONS

The auditor general made 11 recommendations to board staff. The board agreed with all of them.

1. The Board should review and update the Major Events policy and other related Board policies to clarify expectations on the collaboration between the Board and the Chief of Police and the dissemination of intelligence and sharing of operational plans during a major event. The Board should ensure they are consulted when mission, objectives, and priorities are developed in the early stages of a major event.

2. With the onboarding of any new Chief of Police (and on an ongoing basis), the Board should ensure their expectations with respect to major events and related policies are communicated and clearly understood.

3. In cases when a non-standard hiring process is employed, the Board should ensure that sufficient due diligence and transparency is maintained to ensure the full Board is aware and supportive of such critical decisions. Additionally, if necessary, ultimate decisions should be delegated to at least two members of the Board to be compliant with Section 34 of the PSA and to allow for sufficient challenge of such decisions.

4. The Board should formalize, by written policy, its expectations related to dissemination of information by the Chair to the full Board. This should include the nature and extent of the information as well as the mechanism and timing of dissemination of that information.

5. The Board should seek out legal expertise, on an ongoing basis, to confirm that its activities and decisions are in accordance with its legislative and procedural requirements.

6. The Board should, at a minimum, review the role of the City Solicitor and outline instances in which it would be inappropriate for the City Solicitor to provide advice or be present in meetings where there is the potential for a perceived or actual conflict of interest given the City Solicitor’s role as legal counsel for the City. This review could include performing a cost-benefit analysis of retaining regular, independent, Board counsel moving forward to eliminate the potential for perceived or actual conflicts of interest.

7. The Executive Director, in collaboration with Board members, should conduct an analysis of board competencies against the policy expectations to identify any gaps and consider options for bridging these gaps through specialized training and/or advisory support.

8. Leading up to the appointment of new Board members by either Council or the Province of Ontario, the Executive Director should proactively indicate the optimum skills, expertise and experience for potential candidates that would complement the existing Board.

9. When appointing a Chair, the Board should consider the expected workload as compared to the candidates’ portfolios/commitments. The Executive Director, in collaboration with the City Clerk’s Office, should ensure that members of Council are made aware of the likely time commitment prior to any appointments being made, so that Councillors appointed to the OPSB can determine if they will have sufficient time to execute their roles and responsibilities once appointed. In addition, job descriptions for Board members as well as the Chair and Vice-Chair should be reviewed and amended to ensure they accurately reflect the time commitment required.

10. The Executive Director, with the support of Board members, should review and enhance the new Board member orientation program, including additional focus on roles and responsibilities. As part of this, clarity should be provided on the role and responsibility of Councillors who sit on this independent Board.

11. The Board, in collaboration with the Executive Director, should review the resourcing requirements of the OPSB staff to ensure there is adequate resourcing to support the Board in the execution of their statutory responsibilities.