POLICING IS EVERYONE'S BUSINESS

SAFE homes, safe streets and safe communities are goals we strive for daily.

Moving without fear in our neighbourhoods gives us the freedom to
work, give back to our neighbourhoods and raise our families. Making
our cities safe, however, requires more than goals and ideals. It
demands the active participation of everyone. It means community
policing. Community policing begins with neighbourhoods taking the
primary responsibility for their own safety.

Rather than building bunkers and gates to ward off crime and
"undesirables," communities must create authentic partnerships (think
relationships in which responsibility is shared 50-50) with groups
and agencies of mutual concern -- including, of course, the local
police department. Community policing opens avenues for full and
honest communication -- with joint decision-making and
problem-solving -- between the police and the citizens they serve.

A major drawback to community policing, however, is the very
structure of law enforcement agencies in both Canada and the United
States. Our police departments tend to be paramilitary and
bureaucratic, an arrangement at odds with true community policing.
For community policing to be truly effective and efficient, police
agencies must make deep structural changes within their
organizations. What we see, certainly in American police departments,
is a tortuously long chain of command beginning with the beat cop and
working its way up all the way to the chief (or superintendent).
Sensitive internal issues such as morale, safety and personnel moves
must be addressed swiftly, and well. In the U.S., internal
investigations and discipline can take up to a year to complete.
There's usually a bureaucratic explanation, but the delay is still
morally reprehensible and inexcusable.

Justice delayed is justice denied. The entire process needs to be
overhauled, starting with a much flatter organization. Community
partners, welcomed into virtually all areas of police operations, can
make policing more responsive and accountable to neighbourhood needs
and concerns. There are areas, of course, where citizens shouldn't be
directly involved, such as intelligence activities, drug raids or any
other activity that would jeopardize their own safety or the safety
of officers. Nor should citizens have a direct hand in personnel
decisions. Having said that, many U.S. communities have had great
success in using citizen representatives in an advisory capacity.

Citizens, working side by side with their police, help the
partnership more efficiently and effectively identify and resolve
obstacles to neighbourhood health and safety. Increasing citizen
participation shouldn't threaten the integrity of a city's police
force, but rather strengthen its reputation and standing, both in the
community and within the larger institution of policing. I can't
imagine true community policing without civilian review of citizen's
complaints.

Controversial? You bet. Police officer resistance is based largely on
a belief that citizens cannot ever fully grasp what a cop goes
through out there on the streets, and therefore should not be allowed
to sit in judgment of police actions.

It's time for us to help citizens understand the very tough job of a
police officer, and to empower a select group of them, working with
trained investigators (ex-police officers come to mind), to
investigate allegations of poor service or misconduct.

Perhaps Canada can provide a model of citizen oversight that enjoys
effectiveness, efficiency and wide credibility. In no event should a
citizen review board be allowed to deny police officers their due
process rights, or to otherwise insult individuals whose conduct is
in question. By working together in a spirit of trust and
co-operation, police agencies, their unions, and community
stakeholders can create a powerful and satisfying partnership. After
all, the goal is the same: safe streets, safe schools, safe homes.
And a police department that enjoys an outstanding reputation among
the people it serves.