The role city council should play when it comes to the police budget was front and centre at city council on Wednesday.
It comes after the Calgary Police Commission requested to transfer $13 million dollars from the Community Safety investment Framework over the next three years to help fund cost overruns for the Calgary Police Service’s new gun range and training centre.
The funds were originally earmarked towards a program called “Reach Up YYC ” which was supposed to be a program to help people experiencing homelessness. But the need for the program shifted, after the province stepped up and created the Calgary Navigation Centre. The $13 million dollars was then left unallocated.
Coun. Courtney Walcott, who resigned from the commission put forward a notice of motion asking for the commission to provide more information on how they will be spending the funds.
” The CPS alongside the police commission have been putting money aside from the Community Safety Investment Framework, and are not reporting it publicly,” he said.
Coun. Gian-Carlo Carra, who also served on the Calgary Police Commission and resigned , expressed his support for Walcott’s motion. He said given that the police budget is the largest budget item, more scrutiny is needed
” We have to be able to express disagreement within the system so that those checks and balances exist,” he said.
But other councillors expressed concerns about the motion possibly overstepping council’s boundaries
“The idea that we are somehow going to tell another entity to allocate funds for a specific purpose, operating versus capital, to me seems like overreach,” said Coun. Andre Chabot.
Coun. Dan McLean said the motion sets a bad precedent for council.
” I don’t think we should be making motions and in one sense micromanaging,” he said.
During the debate, Coun. Jennifer Wyness asked administration just what council’s role is when it comes to the police budget.
City council heard that council doesn’t have the authority to audit the police budget, but they do have the ability to request any information related to the efficiency and financing requirements of the police service.
City administration also explained that council’s power around the police budget is very limited, and the police act is very clear that it is up to the police commission to decide how the money is spent.
The police commission can also deny council’s request for more details on the budget. That happened in Edmonton earlier this year after city council asked the police commission for an audit and program service review.
A few months later, a report from the Edmonton police commission recommended removing the city councillor seats from commission over concerns about councillors bringing political influence to meetings.
Shawn Cornett, chair of the Calgary Police Commission said their intent is to work with the city.
” We need to both maintain the funding for CSIF, they are important projects we need to make sure that we continue to do that. We also need to make sure that we have a firearms range, that is functional and that can allow us to have officers trained and ready to go on the street,” she said.
Calgary Police Chief Mark Neufeld said the Calgary Police Service will comply with council’s request as long as it doesn’t intrude on the Calgary Police Service’s “operational independence.”
City Council will discuss the funding of the gun range as a separate item during budget deliberations in November.
“Perfectly legitimate” says Criminologist
Mount Royal Criminologist Doug King believes the request by city council is perfectly within their authority.
King says he has questions himself as to why money sat unallocated in a fund that was set up as a joint initiative between the city and police service.
He also wonders why the police service can’t find the funds elsewhere in their budget.
” I think City Council is doing due diligence here,” says King. “I don’t see them pushing back on the Calgary Police Service’s need for a renewed firing range, they are just saying, why is this money unallocated?”
Council voted 8-6 in support of the motion with Coun. McLean, Wyness, Wong, Chu, Sharp, and Chabot, voting against.