May 15, 1998

 TO:Toronto Emergency & Protective Services Committee

FROM:Norman Gardner, Chairman

Toronto Police Services Board

 SUBJECT:TORONTO POLICE SERVICE - PAY DUTY POLICY

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 1.the following report be received; and

 2.the report be forwarded to the next meeting of Council for information.

 Council Reference/Background History:

 At its meeting on April 23, 1998, the Toronto Police Services Board was in receipt of the following report FEBRUARY 24, 1998 from David J. Boothby, Chief of Police:

 ASUBJECT:PAY DUTIES POLICY

 RECOMMENDATION:(1) THAT the Board agree it is not in the best interest of the Service or the community to eliminate pay duties

 (2) THAT the Board concur that pay duties remain at the divisional level

 (3) THAT the Board approve the special event criteria incorporated in Directive 20-01, as established in Board Minute 395/94

 BACKGROUND:

 The Board at its meeting of March 8, 1996 approved three (3) recommendations with regard to the pay duties policy (Board Minute 107/96 refers). This item was deleted from the "outstanding public reports" list at the May 15, 1997 Board meeting, and re-instated at the June 12, 1997 Board meeting. (Board Minutes 214/97 and 223/97 refer)

  Recommendation 1

 THAT the Chief of Police, in consultation with the Metro Solicitor, provide the Board with a report on how pay duty activities could be eliminated.

 Mr. A. Cohen, Deputy Metropolitan Solicitor, has provided a response with regard to the elimination of pay duties.(see attached) Mr. Cohen has suggested that even if the legal or statutory requirements for a police officer being present could be eliminated, public demand may continue to compel this Service to make staff available.

 In his response, Mr. Cohen notes that there may be occasions in which "there are no legal requirements for police officers to attend a particular event, but the organizers of the event wish to have police officers in attendance in order to maintain order . . . Given this situation, the demand for pay duty officers may continue, even if legal requirements for the presence of police officers at certain types of events were eliminated".

 It has been recognized for many years that providing on-duty police officers to perform private policing services beyond statutory/legal requirements imposes significant strain upon the finite resources of the police service. The strain upon existing resources is even greater at this time as we struggle with budget cutbacks and greater demand upon our police officers.

 Pay duty personnel are used to supplement the work force and allow on-duty members to continue with normal patrol functions. The Police Services Act, in subsection 49 (2) recognizes the unique situation of pay duties, allowing members to provide this service and not be in conflict with the secondary employment provisions.

 Therefore, for the reasons listed above, I believe the elimination of pay duties is not desirable.

    Recommendation 2

 THAT the Chief of Police be directed to provide organizations with written rationale outlining the statutory requirements requiring the organization to hire a duly sworn police officer. That organizations also be advised of other measures they may undertake, on their own, regarding less costly security.

 The Service directive entitled 'Special pay duties'  (20-01) has been revised to incorporate the essence of this recommendation (attached). The section entitled "Unit Commander", instructs these members to provide the requester with the following information during the consultation process:

any statutory requirement to have a police officer;

0.1alternate security measures; and

0.2use of traffic control devices.

  Recommendation 3

 THAT, if total elimination of pay duties is not possible, the Chief of Police provide the Board with a policy on pay duty that ensures that these duties are available on an equitable basis to all Service members.

 This recommendation may be interpreted in two ways. Based on the wording of the recommendation, the obvious translation is to develop a directive ensuring that all pay duty requests are available to all members on an equitable basis. This would require centralizing the pay duty distribution process.

 A second interpretation, although not as evident, is to develop a directive ensuring that equitable treatment is given to all requests for pay duty officers. That is, that standard criteria be used Service-wide in determining whether an event required pay duty officers or on-duty officers. Both avenues were explored.

 A survey was sent to all divisions to ascertain the number of pay duties performed by each division, the number of personnel that performed them and the time required to administer the process. Eighteen surveys were distributed, fourteen were completed. The analysis below is based on the fourteen completed questionnaires.

 In addition to the surveys, internal consultations with personnel from 11, 14, 31, and 42 Divisions, Traffic Services, Financial Management, Internal Affairs, and the Public Complaints Investigation Bureau were held. These consultations included personnel from all ranks.

 Also, external consultations with other police services, including the York Regional Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police, were conducted to determine their pay duty policies.

 Interpretation One:   Centralizing of Pay Duties

 Using the survey information, when the number of pay duties performed in a given year was divided by the number of personnel performing pay duties in a particular unit in the same year, the average number of pay duties available per member was fifteen (15). The averages ranged from a high of thirty (30) to a low of six. Forty-three percent (43%) were within the 12 to 18 average range.

 While conducting the unit consultations, it was found that all units had policies in place to ensure that pay duties within that division were distributed on an equitable basis.

 A general consensus also held that a centralized process would not be in the best interest of the Service, its members or the requester. Even those divisions that received a lower number of pay duty requests expressed this viewpoint.

 For the reasons listed below, I concur that pay duties should remain at the divisional level:

 Knowledge of such factors as present investigations, active criminals in the division, scalpers etc. contribute to officer safety and to the delivery of better service to the public and the requester.

 Able to deliver a better service to the community as officers are more aware of the environment and have a knowledge of the area such as street locations and tourist attractions.

 Supports community based policing philosophy embraced in the Beyond 2000 report.

 The management of a division maintains control regarding officer performance standards within that division.

 Morale would be negatively affected should a centralized process be adopted.

  Interpretation Two:   Pay Duty Versus On-Duty Officers

 The current pay duty directive does not contain standard criteria to guide unit commanders in assessing whether to use pay duty or on-duty officers for events. As a result, there is inconsistency in assigning on-duty or pay duty officers.

Criteria to assist in deployment was developed and approved by the Board on August 5, 1994 (Board Minute 395/94 refers). While revising the pay duty directive to incorporate this criteria, some sections of the criteria were found to be too vague and portions were difficult to comprehend.

 CONCLUSION:

 Based on the reference material attached to Board minute 107/96, and following consultations with Unit Commanders, I feel that the intent of Recommendation 3 is the second interpretation. That is, a standard criteria be developed in evaluating incoming requests for pay duties.

 I am recommending the "special event criteria" as outlined on page two (2) of the amended directive 'Special pay duties'  (20-01) be adopted as a reasonable extrapolation of the terms approved in Board minute 395/94.

 Sergeant John Knaap and Ms. Lina Nykorchuk, Analyst, from Corporate Planning will be in attendance to answer any questions that may arise.@

  Conclusions:

 Sergeant John Knaap and Lina Nykorchuk, Analyst, Corporate Planning, were in attendance and discussed this report with the Board.

 The Board approved the following Motions:

 1.THAT the Board receive recommendation no. 1 and, given that the distribution of paid duties is an operational matter, it also receive recommendation no. 2 and approve no. 3; and

 2.THAT the Board provide a copy of the foregoing report to the members of Toronto City Council for information.

 Contact Name and Telephone Number:

 Sergeant John Knaap, Corporate Planning Unit, telephone no. 808-7761.

 Respectfully submitted,

 Norman Gardner

Chairman