EDITORIALS, LOCAL NEWS

WPS CHIEF CUTS TEETH ON MURDER CONTROVERSY – The Honeymoon is Over

 

CHIEF DEVON CLUNIS (PHOTO JGJ)
CHIEF DEVON CLUNIS (PHOTO JGJ)

True tests of leadership don’t come when one basks in the glory of winning an election or securing a high-profile job.

True tests of leadership come when the shit hits the fan.

The toxic fall out from the Opera Night Club murder and the 911 Communications Center controversy are sure to test the mettle of Winnipeg Police Chief Devon Clunis.  Make no mistake about it, an overblown controversy surrounding a man’s belief in prayer is not a true controversy.  A true controversy involves life, death, liability, punishment and people losing their jobs.

Devon Clunis just caught his first true controversy.

On May 6, 2014, Clunis held a press conference announcing a number of Police Service Communications Center staff have been placed on administrative leave after concerns surfaced regarding the handling of a 911 call connected to the Opera Night Club killing.

(If you missed the back story you can find it here; “911 Communications Staff at Center of Murder Controversy.”)

Last Wednesday I did an interview with CJOB’s Charles Adler who suggested the public would perceive the Chief’s announcement as a, “confession” or an admission the Police Service had, “Blood on its hands.”

Others suggested Clunis, “Hung his people out to dry.”

In the past, the Police Service tried to put a positive spin on their use of “administrative leave.”  In reality, administrative leave is nothing more than a politically correct term aimed to try to minimize the negative context associated to the term “suspension.”   I have yet to meet someone who’d been placed on administrative leave who didn’t feel the pain, embarrassment and humiliation one might associate with a suspension.  The fact someone is suspended from their duties automatically creates an inference of negligence, recklessness or a substandard performance.

In many ways it’s like being accused of a sex crime.  Most people automatically default to a guilty as charged mindset and convict you without a trial.

It seems I’m the only person who wasn’t surprised by the hard-hitting questions Adler peppered me with when I tried to present  the “flip side” to CJOB listeners.  While I’m not completely sure if supporters were expressing concern or sympathy, I had to tell them, Adler’s not a big fan of blowing smoke up his guest’s asses.  The man doesn’t apologize for putting “meat on the bones” of a story.

One of those questions was, “If you were the Police Chief in Winnipeg yesterday, would you have called a press conference?”

It was a tough question.

I have no problem criticizing Chief Clunis when circumstances dictate.  In this case I’ll reserve judgement.  Clunis was in a proverbial catch 22 situation.  He was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.  Suppress the information and be accused of a cover up or divulge it and be perceived as a guilty Politician trying to do damage control.

Either way, Devon Clunis wears it.

Regardless, his true test is yet to come.

The investigation into the 911 Communications Center will be in-depth and multifaceted.  Issues to be examined will include, but will not be limited to;

  • How the call was entered (call type, priority)
  • Who cancelled the call
  • Why the call was cancelled
  • The ramifications of the cancellation
  • Police call volumes
  • Police unit availability
  • Major Incidents & Events impacting service capability
  • 911 protocols and practises

If the investigation reveals a clear breach of policy or procedure then someone will surely suffer internal charges and serious consequences.

If the investigation reveals there were no deviations from policy or procedure and the call was closed by someone who had been given the rank, authority or discretionary powers to assess and close 911 calls, then it would seem the issue becomes a systemic one.  If that’s the case the responsibility then shifts to the Police Service and not individual (s) who work in the 911 Communications Center.

Astute Police Insider readers raise issues concerning;

  • Normalized deviance
  • Outcome bias
  • Hindsight bias
  • Apparent lack of malfeasance or nonfeasance

Police Chief Clunis and the internal investigators must be alert to these concerns when arriving at any conclusion regarding culpability.

With the recent arrest of Paclipan’s killer (s) certain information has provided an enhanced understanding of the events that occurred on the night in question.  As a result, the following facts, conclusions and theories begin to emerge and gain strength;

  • The firearm used in the killing was brought to the crime scene by a young offender and never made its way into the club
  • No follow-up 911 call (s) were placed by Opera staff that may have raised the priority of the call for service
  • There were no Police Units available once the original call was entered
  • The call sat in the Police queue for 17 minutes and 15 seconds before it was closed
  • The shooting took place 3 minutes & 58 seconds after the call was closed
  • It’s extremely unlikely a Police Unit would have been dispatched to the club in time to prevent the murder whether the call had been closed or not

Whatever the findings of the internal investigation, Chief Clunis and the WPS are destined to learn much from the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Rustom Paclipan.

As one Police Insider reader put it, “The idea of individual culpability is a canard. No one came to work that night to do a bad job.  Rules won’t keep us safe. You can’t have a rule for every situation, and writing a bunch more would be illusory.”

Translation;

Sacrificial lambs are for farmers, not Police Chiefs.

Let’s hope Clunis gets it right.

7 Comments

  1. James G Jewell

    No problem Shirley, your feedback is always welcome.

  2. First off, I just want to apologize to you James for going off the way that I did (I’ve been feeling guilty all week). My reactions (as of late) are more about what’s going on in Ontario and not about you or WPS. I am so sorry.

    Mike L >> Think James has proven over the course of his life that he can certainly take care of himself. I am well aware of the purpose of this article (and others). My posts were not deleted, ha-ha.

    James…this is exactly what you meant about waiting till all the facts are in. Lesson learned! Ugh!

  3. No one is ever 100% right. Policing is a balance of experience, discretion and legal judgments. James is trying to educate you and others on the shades of grey in policing. After reading your post I certainly see your lack of understanding into real policing in Winnipeg. I can also understand why he would have deleted your posts.

    Congratulations Jim and keep up the great efforts.

  4. Too bad you deleted all my posts James. That is exactly the reason why people like me (civilians) should be on the IIU, and not people like you (cops).

    The Chief is 100% right, I’m 100% right, and these individuals are guilty. I’ll even go as far as to speculate, a police officer falsely reported that everyone had gone home (in this case) which would be one of two reasons someone would have had the authority to cancel. The only other? The original caller, staff at the bar, cancelled the call.

    According to the Police Services Act James, the Chief did his job. It’s called ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY! The staff (police officer or agent of the WPS) in this case have broken the law. Now that you have demonstrated the face of WPS corruption James, you made it my business to see that Manitobans understand that.

    I want you to know I’m very good at what I do.

  5. Chief Clunis did, “make no mistake” 100% the right thing. This is what transparency and accountability look like. According to the Police Services Act, it’s his job. There’s no controversy, and it’s not a catch 22. He simply:

    A. Let the public know the WPS were taking the matter seriously;

    B As a measure to protect the public from POSSIBLE future harm, staff had been placed on administrative leave;

    C. An internal investigation had commenced, and pending the outcome, steps would be taken to insure this would not happen again.

    “No one came to work that night to do a bad job.”

    Maybe so, it still isn’t a valid reason for not doing a job properly.

    “Rules”

    Rules definitely keep people safe. Isn’t that why police follow strict protocals (rules) when engaging in “deadly force”? I love rules. Rules (if followed by everyone) make things run smoothly. Rules are what let people know, we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

    With regards to Administrative leave? “…it’s like being accused of a sex crime.”

    I hope to God innocent people aren’t torturing themselves with this kind of worry. Don’t do that to yourselves. Administrative leave is nothing more than paid time off.

    “Police Chief Clunis and the internal investigators must…”

    (smiles) So now you’re telling them how to do their job? Don’t you think you’re taking this just a little too personally (I don’t expect you to respond to that)? It’s obvious how much you care. Are you prepared for a negative outcome? It could happen? Not that I want you to worry, just want you prepared…just in case.

  6. I agree with your assessment, but not the decision to suspend. He had to be up front about the call and not reactive. Looks very bad if it came out from the press first. I just don’t feel that a administrative suspension/leave was the right thing to do. If those involved required a stress day, let them have it. Don’t force it on them as it does have a lot of bad connotations even if not intended.

    Although I also have to say at this early point I feel the Chief has proper intentions, and is still learning as well. Sometimes nothing you do is ever right for everyone but an attempt at the best balance. Let’s see what the future holds and what the facts are.

    Wishing the family and all those with the best intentions that night some peace.

  7. “Suppress the information and be accused of a cover up or divulge it and be perceived as a guilty Politician trying to do damage control.”

    I’d like to think there’s a great third option to look at in terms of the reason for the chief’s disclosure: Because it was the right thing to do in terms of maintaining public confidence in the WPS, long-term.

    For now, I’m thinking Clunis looked at the bigger picture and thought: “It’s our responsibility to make the public aware of this, now, and tell them we’re handing it.”

    JT

Share your thoughts - we value your opinion!