|
|
OTTAWA
POLICE SERVICES BOARD
COMMISSION DE SERVICES
POLICIERS D’OTTAWA
|
|
Working together for a safer community
La
sécurité de notre communauté, un travail d’équipe
|
REPORT
RAPPORT
|
DATE 10
February 2010
TO/DEST. Chair
and Members, Ottawa Police Services Board
FROM/EXP. Executive
Director, Ottawa Police Services Board
SUBJECT/OBJET POLICE SERVICES BOARD ACTIVITY, TRAINING AND
PERFORMANCE – 2009 ANNUAL REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
That the Ottawa Police
Services Board receive this report and forward it to City Council for
information.
BACKGROUND
In
December 2005 the Ottawa Police Services Board received a report from the City
of Ottawa Auditor General on the Board’s governance practices. Among the Auditor General’s recommendations
were the following:
a) That
the Board specify training requirements and report annually (and publicly) on
individual member training, and training of the Board as a whole.
b) That
the Board determine performance evaluation measures and conduct a formal Board
evaluation annually.
c) That
the Board report the results of the performance evaluation in a board activity
report … (including) information on such things as:
-
number
of board meetings held
-
number
of community meetings held
-
ceremonial
events attended
-
number
of Council presentations
-
hours of
commitment
-
board
training.
In March 2007 the first annual report on Board Activity and Training
covering the period 1 January to 31 December 2006 was submitted to the
Board and forwarded to City Council for information; a separate report on the
results of the Board’s first formal performance review process was also
submitted. At that time the Board
decided to conduct comprehensive, formal evaluations at least once every four
years and less formal evaluations in other years. Following the first formal evaluation in 2006, reviews of the
Board’s performance in the years 2007 and 2008 consisted of measuring the
Board’s achievements against its work plan for each of those years. For 2009, a comprehensive, formal evaluation
was again undertaken with the help of a consultant.
This report and the data contained in Annex A constitute the fourth
annual report on the Police Services Board’s Activity, Training and Performance
and covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009. Also contained in this report is an overview
of the Board’s recent performance self-evaluation.
BOARD ACTIVITY
In
2006 the Board approved the following activity indicators to be tracked
throughout the year and reported on in the annual report:
Activity Indicators
1. Board
and Committee Meetings
The volume of work associated with board and committee meetings on a
monthly basis demonstrated by:
·
Number of
meetings, including all board meetings (public and in camera), meetings of
board’s standing committees (Complaints Committee, Finance & Audit
Committee, Human Resources Committee, and Policy & Governance Committee),
and other committees on which board members serve (Community Awards Selection
Committee, Police Scholarship & Charitable Fund Board of Trustees, Thomas
G. Flanagan Scholarship Award Selection Committee)
·
Hours spent
at meetings
·
Number of
items on agendas (public and in camera)
·
Number of
pages of agenda material reviewed.
2. Community Meetings
In accordance with the Auditor’s recommendations, the number of
community meetings is identified separately from other board meetings and
includes statistics on:
·
Number of
meetings
·
Hours spent
at meetings.
3. Other Functions & Events
Members of the Police Services Board
attend a wide variety of other business functions and ceremonial events outside
of board and committee meetings each year, such as: business meetings (OAPSB Board of Directors, Big 12 boards,
meetings with city or provincial officials); collective bargaining and other
meetings related to labour relations; Ottawa Police Association functions;
Senior Officers’ Association functions; media conferences; briefings; police
awards ceremonies; recruit badge ceremonies; community events; and meetings
with other City partners. This category
records the following statistical information related to these other functions:
·
Number of
events
·
Hours spent
at them.
Board Committees
In 2009, all four Board committees fulfilled their meeting frequency
requirements and completed the tasks assigned to them for the year. The Policy & Governance Committee and
the Finance & Audit Committee are both required to meet a minimum of four
times a year, while the Complaints Committee and Human Resources Committee meet
on an as required basis. The Complaints
Committee was not required to meet at all in 2009 as no requests for reviews of
policy or service complaints were received.
The number of times the committees met in 2009 were:
Complaints
Committee: 0
Finance
& Audit Committee: 7
Human
Resources Committee: 7
Policy
& Governance Committee: 5.
BOARD TRAINING
The Auditor
General’s report emphasized the importance of board member orientation and
training as essential elements of good governance. To assist the Ottawa Police Board in ensuring its members make
the commitment to ongoing learning, the Auditor General recommended that the
Board specify training requirements for its members, and report annually and
publicly on training for the Board as a whole and for individual members. The Board captured these recommendations in
a Training Policy adopted in 2006 and attached at Annex B. Statistics for training in 2009 are
contained in Annex A.
Indicators pertaining to
board training include:
·
Ministry
training attended by board members either individually or as a group
·
Other
training/education sessions attended by the Board as a group
·
Other
training/education sessions attended by each individual board member
·
Hours spent
in training by the Board as a whole and by individual board members.
If the
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services offered no training in
the year being reported on, the Activity Report will indicate that. Similarly, if there were no members serving
their first year on the board in the year being reported on, the report will
indicate that the required orientation training for new members was not
applicable for that year. In 2009,
there were no new Board members so orientation training by the Ministry was not
required and the Ministry did not offer any other training. This is captured in Annex A.
The
results of the 2009 Board performance evaluation, which were addressed in a
separate report at the 1 February 2010 Board meeting and are summarized later
in this report, contained repeated references to the importance of orientation
and ongoing training for Board members.
A recommendation arising from the performance evaluation and accepted by
the Board is to acknowledge in this report that failure to engage in
appropriate training and development opportunities limits a board member’s
ability to participate effectively as a board member.
Another
recommendation approved by the Board on 1 February 2010 was that on an annual
basis, each member of the Board shall be asked to read and sign the “Police
Services Board Code of Conduct” contained in Police Services Act regulation,
and that the names of members signing the affirmation form be recorded in the
annual report on Activity, Training and Performance. The following members have signed and submitted their form for
2010, thereby signifying their review of the Code and their re-commitment to
follow it: D. Doran,
D. Guilmet-Harris, E. El‑Chantiry, H. Jensen, J. MacEwen, M.
McRae and B. Monette.
A complete list of
achievements in 2009 is set out in Annex C.
Board Performance Evaluation
As previously mentioned, the Board also conducted a comprehensive
evaluation of its own performance for 2009 with the assistance of an
independent consultant. The detailed
results of the review and actions being taken to address the areas that Board
members believe could be improved were addressed in a report submitted to the
Board at its 1 February 2010 meeting.
At that meeting the Board directed that an overview of the evaluation
results be included in this report, and that this report be shared with City
Council.
The consultant reported that when asked to assess overall performance,
Board members responded that the Board was performing “very well” to
“excellent”. Performance in the
following areas was rated as being done “adequately” to “very well”: vision and stewardship, community relations,
strategic/business planning, performance monitoring and finance.
When asked to identify
perceived strengths, the Board members noted the following:
·
Excellent relationship with the Chief of Police
·
The composition of the Board brings a good mix of experience
·
Community relations, good communications and responsiveness to
community needs
·
With the aid of its governance tools, the Board works well together and
there is good rapport and cooperation between members.
In terms of weaknesses, the primary concern identified was the level of
commitment and interest devoted to the work of the Board by some members. Weaknesses identified by the Board members
included:
·
Somewhat uneven Member participation
·
Appointment terms should be more carefully planned in terms of length
and timing to ensure continuity of expertise (it was noted that this is not
within the Board’s control, aside from lobbying appointing bodies for change)
·
Confusion by the public about the role of the Board
·
A longer planning horizon and more time allotted for in-depth policy
review would be beneficial.
In specific categories, the
following observations were noted:
Board Structure and Roles
·
All respondents believe criteria in this category are being done.
·
The Board’s regular review of its policies is being done very well.
·
The Board’s written policies and procedures work very well.
·
There has been a marked improvement since the last review in 2006 with
regard to the functioning of the Board’s four committees.
·
There is room for improvement in Board members’ understanding that they
represent the Board.
Board Meetings and
Procedures
·
Meeting frequency, meeting length, agenda and report quality, and
conflict of interest adherence were all recorded as being “done very well”.
·
Room for improvement was noted in respecting the Chair’s role as
official spokesperson and in maintaining confidentiality of in camera sessions.
Board Relations
·
Respondents thought that Board relations were going adequately well or
very well.
·
Being done very well most of the time were: the Board’s relationship with the Chief, Chief-Board conflict
management, Board independence from the OPS, Chief performance and evaluation,
succession planning and role delineation.
These are areas that many boards find challenging and the results are a
marked improvement from the 2006 evaluation.
·
Uneven participation and sharing of the Board workload was identified
as needing improvement.
Board Education and
Development
·
Board member support to take advantage of ongoing education, associated
resource allocation and regular self-evaluation were generally seen as being
done very well, but can be continuously improved on and should be considered as
part of the Board’s strategic planning process and reviews.
·
The consultant noted that failure to engage in appropriate training and
development opportunities limits a Board member’s ability to participate
effectively as a Board member.
Strategic / Business
Planning
·
Generally seen as being done adequately or very well, although
performance measures were seen as an area that would benefit from improvement.
CONSULTATION
Consultation
was not applicable in the preparation of this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There
are no costs directly associated with this report.
CONCLUSION
This report meets the City of Ottawa Auditor General’s recommendation
to report annually and publicly on the activities, training and performance of
the Ottawa Police Services Board.
Statistical information was collected throughout 2009 on the number of
meetings and other functions attended by Board members and the hours spent at
them, as well as training or educational opportunities in which Board members
participated. The report also provides
a summary of the Board’s performance in meeting its work plan in 2009, and
includes an overview of the Board’s comprehensive self-evaluation of its
performance in 2009. The Board
successfully achieved its 2009 work plan with the exception of two
policy-related matters that are in progress; both are scheduled for completion
in the first quarter of 2010.
In accordance with the Auditor General’s recommendation, this report
will be forwarded to City Council for information.
(Original
signed by)
Wendy Fedec
Executive Director
Attach.
(3)
|
|
REPORT
RAPPORT
|
|
DATE:
|
9 February
2010
|
|
TO:
|
Executive
Director, Ottawa Police Services Board
|
|
FROM:
|
Chief of
Police, Ottawa Police Service
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
COMMEMORATIVE NAMING POLICY FOR POLICE
FACILITIES
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Ottawa Police
Services Board:
1.
Request
that the City of Ottawa Council approve an amendment to its Commemorative
Naming Policy for Municipal Parks, Streets and Facilities (July 2002) to
delegate authority for the naming of municipal police buildings, in whole or in
part, to the Ottawa Police Services Board.
2.
Subject
to Council approval of Recommendation 1, approve the Police Services Board
Commemorative Naming Policy for Police Facilities attached as Annex A.
BACKGROUND
At
the 26 October 2009 meeting of the Board, the Board received a report from the
Chief requesting direction with regard to the development of a commemorative
naming policy for police buildings. The
report contained three specific options for the Board’s consideration:
- Adopt the
City of Ottawa Commemorative Naming Policy for Municipal Parks, Streets
and Facilities.
- Adopt a
“non-commemorative naming” policy for any buildings other than the Ottawa
Police Headquarters building.
- Permit
itself or the Chief the discretionary authority to designate community
boardrooms or equivalent space for commemorative naming as deemed
appropriate.
Using
the City’s Commemorative Naming Policy as a model, with appropriate adaptation
for Police Service application, is necessary because all Ottawa Police
facilities are owned by the City of Ottawa and it is important to recognize and
ensure consistency with the City’s policy.
At
the 26 October 2009 meeting the Board gave clear direction that it wished to
adopt a “non-commemorative naming” policy for any buildings other than the
Ottawa Police Headquarters. However
parts of buildings, such as meeting rooms, could be commemoratively named.
DISCUSSION
The
direction provided by the Police Services Board at the 26 October 2009 meeting
has been considered and integrated into a draft policy attached as Annex A,
which is now submitted for the Board’s consideration.
The
proposed policy adopts the City of Ottawa’s framework with adaptations to
reflect the principle noted above with regard to a “non-commemorative naming”
policy for buildings, and to reflect the unique role of the Police Service in
having a separate administrative structure and governing body in the entity of
the Police Services Board.
Upon
further review of the City’s policy and best practice with respect to community
involvement, the proposed policy will not allow the Board or the Chief the
discretionary authority to designate the name of space within a municipal
police facility outside of the process proposed in the policy. The Board and the Chief will have the
authority to initiate and recommend a naming process consistent with the
procedures contained in the draft policy.
The
adaptation of the existing principles and processes contained in the City of Ottawa
Commemorative Naming Policy for Municipal Parks, Streets and Facilities (July
2002) in the draft
Ottawa Police Services Board’s Commemorative Naming Policy reflects the unique
characteristics of the Police Service in the following ways:
a)
The
composition of the Police Commemorative Naming Committee;
b)
A
“non-commemorative naming” approach to police buildings, except Police
Headquarters; and,
c)
Providing a
consistent approach to the naming of spaces inside Police facilities.
The
composition of the Police Commemorative Naming Committee parallels the approach
taken in the City of Ottawa policy and reflects appropriate functional and
decision-making authorities at the Board and Police Service.
The
Board’s October 2009 direction to adopt a “no naming” approach to police
buildings, except for Police Headquarters, ensures that all police buildings
retain their geographical or operational designation, to support a greater
public understanding of their locations.
To recognize that the commemoration of individuals and significant
events is an important and cherished approach taken by the Police Service, the
policy does provide for the commemorative naming of parts of existing and
future police facilities for as long as those buildings are used for police
purposes. This policy will not extend
to City-owned buildings that are not primarily used as police facilities but
that may have a police presence within them; for example, a community centre in
which a community police centre is located will not fall under this
policy.
NEXT STEPS
Following
Board approval of the policy attached at Annex A, it will be forwarded to City
of Ottawa Council with a request that Council amend the City’s Commemorative Naming
Policy for Municipal Parks, Streets and Facilities, to recognize
the Board’s policy and delegate authority to the Police Services Board for the
naming of municipal police buildings.
Upon
Council approval of the requested changes, OPS staff will ensure that the
necessary administrative procedures are developed to implement the new policy,
including the development of a Commemorative Naming Application Form modeled on
the existing City of Ottawa form in English and French.
CONSULTATION
The
26 October 2009 report to the Board requested direction and opened the
discussion on this matter. Since that
time there has been no unsolicited input received on this matter. The discussion and direction of the Board
has been considered and integrated into a draft policy that is submitted for
the Board’s consideration. Reference
has been made to the City’s Commemorative Naming policy and the Board’s policy
is modelled after it. Consultation has
taken place with the Board Executive Director, Board Solicitor, the City
Solicitor/City Clerk and OPS staff.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
There
is a future financial impact with the adoption of a commemorations policy that
requires the naming of buildings or rooms at the Ottawa Police Service. Costs for consultation, plaques, signage,
translation, design and ongoing maintenance will need to be factored into
future capital and operating budgets as required.
CONCLUSION
Policing
is steeped in tradition that celebrates and recognizes its history through a
number of ceremonies, events, dedications and initiatives.
In
the past City Council has chosen to name Ottawa Police Headquarters after a
retiring Chief and the Ottawa Police Service has chosen to recognize and
commemorate such history further through the naming of two community boardrooms
in honour of officers who have died while still on the job.
The
OPS also recognizes officers who have fallen in the line of duty through “Walls
of Honour” that are in the lobby of Headquarters and also in or near the parade
rooms at all Divisional buildings. A
separate plaque in the lobby of 474 Elgin Street also contains the names of
those who have been killed in the line of duty.
Finally,
the various buildings occupied by the Ottawa Police Service contain plaques
associated with the construction of those facilities.
The
Board’s adoption of a commemorative naming policy will provide a consistent,
clear and fair process, and ensure that there will be a continued opportunity
to recognize policing traditions and history in an appropriate manner.
(original
signed by)
Vern
White
Chief
of Police
Attach
(1)
|
Policy
Number: Policy Subject:
|
CR-12 COMMEMORATIVE
NAMING OF POLICE FACILITIES
|
|
LEGISLATIVE
REFERENCE / AUTHORITY
|
Police
Services Board Minutes, 22
Feb. 2010
|
|
DATE
APPROVED
|
22 February 2010
|
|
DATE
AMENDED
|
|
|
DATE
TO BE REVIEWED
|
2013
|
|
REPORTING
REQUIREMENT
|
N/A
|
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE /
AUTHORITY
The
Police Services Board approved this policy at a meeting on 22 February 2010.
REFERENCES
·
City
of Ottawa Commemorative Naming Policy for Municipal Parks, Streets and
Facilities – Report ACS2002-CRS-SEC-0057 dated 2 July 2002, approved by
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee 16 July 2002 & City
Council 24 July 2002
·
Commemorative
Naming Information Sheet, Application Form and Affidavits
·
City
of Ottawa Council Minutes – 3 March 1993 (Naming of Ottawa Police Headquarters)
·
City
of Ottawa Council Minutes – (date to be inserted when Council approves delegated authority to PSB)
POLICY
STATEMENT
The Ottawa Police Services Board is committed to providing a fair,
consistent and efficient process, while respecting the important need for
public consultation and legislative approvals, with respect to commemorative
naming of parts of municipal police facilities after a person, persons, family
name or event.
This policy sets out a framework and provides direction for the
Police Services Board, and to the Chief of Police, regarding considerations and
processes for the naming of municipal police facilities, and parts of municipal
police facilities, owned by the City of Ottawa.
In preparing the policy, the City of Ottawa’s Commemorative
Naming Policy for Municipal Parks, Streets and Facilities has been used as
a guide to ensure consistency with the City’s practices.
SCOPE
It
is the policy of the Board that municipal police facilities, except for Police
Headquarters located at 474 Elgin Street, not be given commemorative names, but
that they be referred to by their geographical or policing operations name. Commemorative naming will apply solely to the naming of parts of municipal police facilities, such as
meeting rooms, for as long as the buildings are used for police purposes.
This policy applies only to City-owned buildings that are
primarily designated for police use. It
does not apply to other City-owned buildings that may contain a lesser police
presence, such as a community centre in which a community police centre is
located.
PURPOSE
The
main objectives of this policy are to ensure:
1.
A
clear, efficient and timely commemorative naming process for parts of municipal
police facilities;
2.
The
application of consistent criteria to determine the validity of a commemorative
name;
3.
The
application of a concrete consultation process and community participation;
4.
One
central repository for all commemorative naming requests for municipal police
facilities or parts of facilities;
5.
An
appropriate approval process that recognizes the importance of the role played
by legislative bodies (i.e. the Police Services Board);
6.
Consistency
with related policies at the City of Ottawa.
APPLICATION
Any member of the public, Police Services Board or Police Service
(through the Chief) may submit a nomination for commemorative naming of part of
a municipal police facility.
POLICY DESCRIPTION
/ IMPLEMENTATION
Criteria
When
the naming of a part of a police facility is being requested, at least one of
the following criteria shall apply:
- The nominated
individual shall have demonstrated excellence, courage or exceptional
service to the citizens of the City of Ottawa, the Province of Ontario
and/or Canada;
- The nominated
individual shall have an extraordinary community service record;
- The nominated
individual shall have worked to foster equality and reduce discrimination;
- Where the nominated
individual is a current Police employee, the individual shall have made an
outstanding contribution to the Ottawa Police Service outside of her/his
capacity and duties as a Police employee, or they may be recognized for
their exceptional service once they are no longer a Police employee;
- An individual may
be recognized for a significant financial contribution to a facility,
where that contribution significantly benefits the community that the
facility serves;
- The nominated name
has historical significance.
Commemorative Naming Application Form
A Commemorative Naming information sheet, application form and
required affidavits will be available in both French and English through the
contact noted at the end of this policy document.
Processes
The commemorative naming process for municipal police facilities
will involve a different course of action depending on the circumstances
surrounding the request/requirement for naming. The following outlines three
possible circumstances under this policy with respect to commemorative naming:
A. COMMEMORATIVE
NAMING PROCESS: EXTERNAL APPLICATIONS
Receipt of a
Nomination/Application:
All requests for
commemorative naming are to be submitted in writing by completing the Ottawa
Police Services’ Commemorative Naming Application Form and supporting
documentation.
Processing of the
Nomination/Application:
Processing the application
will involve confirmation of criteria, reference checks (if applicable),
discussion with the applicant and applicable departments or directorates,
initial meeting of the Police Commemorative Naming Committee (PCNC), public
consultation for a 60-day period, compiling consultation results, and
reconvening a meeting of the PCNC to review the public consultation results and
departmental comments, and reach a decision for recommendation to the Board.
Board Approval:
After the PCNC has reached a
decision, an in camera report to the Board will be prepared containing
the PCNC’s recommendation.
Implementation of Approved
Nomination:
Following Board approval,
implementation of the approved commemorative name is undertaken. This involves final notification to the
nominee, preparation of an official letter signed by the Board Chair and Chief,
and an official unveiling ceremony for the nominee and/or family with the
presentation of a plaque to be erected at the site, indicating the name as well
as its significance for commemoration.
B. COMMEMORATIVE
NAMING PROCESS: NEW FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
The Facilities Section of the
Ottawa Police Service will notify the Police Services Board Executive Director
when a new police facility is to be constructed, with information regarding the
specific facility and the applicable time frame for construction.
The Executive Director may
convene a meeting of the Police Commemorative Naming Committee as required to
discuss and name all new facilities (based on geographic or operational
references) that have been identified as requiring a name, or to discuss a
recommended commemorative name for a part of a police facility.
The Committee shall review
the approved list of names eligible for consideration to determine if there is
an appropriate name for the identified parts of the facility, or undertake
necessary steps to solicit proposed names.
If a commemorative name is selected for any part of the facility from
the Commemorative Names Reserve List, or a name is recommended through another
means, the public consultation process will commence for 60 days. The Police Commemorative Naming Committee
will reconvene to review public comment and develop a final
recommendation. The recommendation will
be submitted for approval to the Board.
C. COMMEMORATIVE NAMING PROCESS: COMMEMORATIVE NAMES RESERVE LIST
Similar to the process outlined in Section A above, a name may be submitted
that is not site or venue specific. In
this regard, the application will undergo the same process with respect to
criteria evaluation and investigation.
Staff will discuss possible options and suitability with the
nominator. If a site and/or geographic
location is not determined through these discussions, the name will be placed
on the Commemorative Names Reserve List (for facilities) maintained by the City
Clerk.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Public consultation shall be undertaken in accordance with the size
and scope of the part of the facility being named. Consultation may consist of formal written notification of the
proposed name to ward-affected community associations, applicable consultative
groups and Ottawa Police Service advisory groups (where appropriate) for
comment. Public meetings may be held
upon request by a member of the Board, and advertisements may be placed in
applicable community newspapers and dailies, where appropriate, and on the
Service’s Web site (ottawapolice.ca).
The public consultation period shall last two months, or 60 calendar
days.
Public consultation is required as the issue of commemorative
naming of facilities or parts thereof directly affects citizens and provides
identity to the communities in which they live. Through public consultation at the community and city-wide level,
residents will be able to ensure they maintain a strong connection to their
communities and will be able to gain a better understanding of the individual
who has been nominated for commemoration.
Statistical information on comments received under consultation will be
provided to individuals other than the Commemorative Naming Committee, upon
request. However, specifics and written
comments received will only be available to the Committee and Police Service
Board.
Police staff will provide the final decision on a proposal to
individuals who submit a comment under the public consultation component, and
provide a copy of the Commemorative Naming policy and information sheet, when
necessary.
POLICE COMMEMORATIVE NAMING COMMITTEE
The Police Commemorative Naming Committee (PCNC) is composed of
the following representatives:
1.
The
Chair of the Police Services Board’s Policy & Governance Committee
2.
The
Police Services Board Executive Director
3.
The
Executive Officer (or designate)
4.
The
Director of Community Development and Corporate Communications (or designate)
5.
The
Director of Police Facilities (or designate).
Meetings will be held in-camera, in accordance with the Police
Services Act exemption for matters pertaining to an identifiable
individual.
COMMEMORATIVE NAMES
RESERVE
LIST MAINTENANCE
AND USE
The Office of the City Clerk maintains the Commemorative Names
Reserve list for City parks and facilities.
Consistent with Council direction, historical names will be given
precedence. Otherwise, there shall be
no prioritization system of commemorative names on the list. Nominators are free to designate the name
for use in a specific police facility at the time of nomination if they chose.
The List shall be made available on request to any interested
party, although the results of the investigations of the naming requests shall
remain confidential.
RENAMING
The renaming process shall be identical to the commemorative
naming process and shall also require the Police Services Board as the final
authority for approving the proposed name.
The renaming process differs in that it entails the discarding of an old
name, which most likely has become an important part of community
identity. Thus the need for public
input is even greater.
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions apply:
Commemorative - shall refer to the official naming of a part of a municipal police
facility to commemorate or perpetuate the memory of a person, persons, family
name or event.
Commemorative Names Reserve List – shall refer to a central
Corporate list maintained by the City Clerk of all commemorative names
submitted and approved for parks and facilities, however, not yet used.
Renaming – shall refer to the act of discarding of an old or current name,
which most likely has become an important part of community identity. The old
or current name is not restricted to a commemorative name, but is inclusive and
refers to names originating from a street, community, geographical area, etc.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Board
Executive Director, OPS Superintendents, Executive Directors and Directors
It is the responsibility of the Executive Director of the Police
Services Board and of OPS Superintendents, Executive Directors and Directors
to:
Ø
Understand
and support this policy, and ensure that the policy is communicated to
employees and the public.
Ø
The
Facilities section of the Police Service will notify the Board Executive
Director when a new municipal police facility is to be constructed, information
regarding the specific facility and the applicable time frame for construction,
and, if applicable, information with respect to proposed names for the facility
or a part thereof.
Ø
The
Executive Director will consult with the City Clerk regarding whether there are
names on the Commemorative Names Reserve List that have been proposed for a
police facility.
Employees
Employees
responding to a public inquiry regarding commemorative naming are responsible
for:
Ø
Referencing
the subject Policy and processes, where applicable;
Ø
If
applicable, directing the inquiry to the Board Executive Director or the
contact noted at the end of this policy document.
CONTRAVENTIONS
Failure to comply with this policy will result in inconsistent
information provided to the public and members of the Police Services Board,
and increase the possibility of improper commemorative naming of parts of
municipal police facilities without appropriate research, community involvement
and endorsement.
OPERATIONAL DIRECTORATE: Office
of the Chief Directorate
CONTACT
Executive
Officer to the Chief of Police
