Thoughts on the convergence of heartbreak and hope
Regional Council held its second (and final) public input session on this year’s budget on February 8th. At that meeting over 30 delegations spoke, many of whom asked for the police budget to be sent back for further review and reductions. Several delegations requested funding for preventative supports, including Shore Centre, Porchlight Counselling and Addiction Services, and Shelter Movers. If you want a glimpse into some of the amazing supports being offered in our community, listening to the delegations share about their work is very informative and encouraging. Many of the funding requests were for such small amounts even though it’s clear that the work is needed and important in providing true community safety. I’d encourage everyone to watch the meeting to learn more. GroundUpWR also live-tweeted the meeting and you can view that thread here.
Immediately following that meeting was another meeting to discuss and vote on Councillor Deutschmann’s motion. You can read the motion in its entirety here, but essentially it called for sending the police budget in its current form back to the Waterloo Region Police Service (WRPS) for review. That discussion, while just under an hour, is also something worth watching if you want a sense of what some of the arguments were for and against this motion.
Eventually the discussion ended when the vote was ‘called to question’ which means that all discussion ends and council moves right into the vote. The following councillors voted in support of Councillor Deutschmann’s motion (to send the budget back to the WRPS):
Rob Deutschmann
Chantel Huinink
Colleen James
Kari Williams
Pam Wolf
Sue Foxton
Dorothy McCabe
Natasha Salonen
The following councillors voted against that motion:
Karen Redman
Doug Craig
Jim Erb
Michael Harris
Jan Liggett
Joe Nowak
Sandy Shantz
Berry Vrbanovic
As you can see, that resulted in eight votes in support and eight votes against, which means the motion failed. And that’s where today’s post title comes in. That vote left me feeling both heartache and hope. Never have we been so close to seeing the budget sent back for further discussion and changes. To see the motion fail after a tie vote was frustrating and heartbreaking. So many people shared why they saw value in rejecting the police budget as it currently stands. To have heard all of those intelligent and impassioned messages come to council and for the motion to fail is incredibly disappointing. Yet, that same statement of ‘never having been so close’ gives us reason for hope, too. To all of those who delegated to council, who emailed or called their councillors, who had conversations with others on this issue, it’s working. Our elected officials are beginning to better understand your experiences. It’s slow, painfully so, but attitudes are shifting as more people are exposed to what real community safety can actually look like.
When I look at the voting record on this particular motion, one thing that stands out to me is that the vast majority of those who voted to reject the police budget are new to the role. Whereas the majority of those who voted to accept the budget as is, are those who have sat on council for more than one term. Perhaps that is what Councillor James was noticing too when she commented, that there is a different council dynamic and some of the new councillors are questioning the status quo with “a greater understanding of respecting and representing the community, how decisions are made, and listening to the community.”
There are many reasons why I believed the police budget should be rejected in its current form, but one issue is around the hiring of new officers. The police budget that was approved by the Police Services Board includes funding to hire 19 new officers in 2023. Even though those officers likely won’t be hired until April of this year, or later, the budget has annualized the salaries of these potential hires, meaning that dollars are allocated for these salaries from January 1st on. For many, that feels like council is essentially being asked to fund a surplus. That surplus, according to Councillor Deutschmann would be in excess of a million dollars. Deutschmann stated, "We cannot fund a surplus and we have an ability to create more opportunities to help out the local social agencies like the ones we heard from tonight, who are doing great crime prevention work."
However, several councillors rejected this premise and thought the police budget was appropriate. Chair Redman said the police budget was “reasonable and defensible.” Redman also told councillors “there was a lot of scrutiny of the police budget, and police leadership and the board felt it was accountable and fair.” As someone who watched the budget presentation at the Police Services Board, I disagree. I shared a short recap on Twitter of that meeting, but essentially there were only a handful of comments (no real questions as far as I am concerned). Most of those comments were thanking the Chief for the great presentation. There was also this comment from board member, Tony Giovinazzo, “I think we need to have a much higher complement than 19 officers.” None of that feels much like ‘scrutiny’ to me.
Councillor Doug Craig also voted against Councillor Deutschmann’s motion. He stated, “I worry about the damage to the morale of the police in this region ... how unfair it is to a group of people.” I found that quotation particularly discouraging given it was said after over thirty delegations spoke to council earlier that evening, many outlining the important preventative work they do in our community. Many of these organizations operate on shoestring budgets while providing care to some of our most vulnerable citizens. Those are the folks who need to be prioritized in these conversations.
While many councillors shared that their residents are asking for more police, Councillor James said, “it was tough to sit at the table and hear some calling for more safety while others who have contacted her want the over-policing of certain communities to stop.” James continued, “It hits me differently because it is a community that I am part of. I’m a part of the Black community. It’s indicative of the systemic work that needs to be done within policing.”
Some council members seemed to take it personally that others would question the police budget in any way, which is of course a problem in itself. However, I tend to agree with Councillor James’ perspective as outlined here. "There is absolutely nothing wrong with us as council saying, 'Hold on a second, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. There is clarification that needs to happen' and it is our due diligence to ensure that we do what we need to do to come to a collective agreement about this final overall regional budget."
On that note, one of the requests made by council was to see the KPMG report that Chief Crowell referenced several times in his presentation of the police budget. As outlined in this WR Record article, “Crowell was leaning heavily on the report to justify the police 2023 budget request for an extra $18.3 million in 2023, and for the hiring of an additional 55 officers over the next three years.” However, police declined to release that report, offering only an executive summary instead. If the WRPS truly wants to be transparent, as it claims, one step towards that is releasing the entire report.
I want to remind you that although Councillor Deutschmann’s motion failed, the budget, including the police budget is not finalized until Budget Day on February 22nd. If you want to speak to any budget item, please contact your councillors before that date, and encourage others to do the same.
I’ll leave the final words to Ann Marie Beals who delegated at council on February 8th and offered a vision of community safety that I believe we should all embrace.
"You want less crime in the region? Then instead of increasing an already bloated police budget, invest the money in housing, health care, education, and land back, providing opportunities for the rights of all community members.”
And here’s a little something I have been listening to this week: This Is Not the End, by MILCK.