Gary Mason, Vancouver, B.C. ( Globe and Mail) - Someone else might have resisted the temptation, especially knowing he might be blackballed as a result. But Mike Webster has never operated that way.
And so, when the respected police psychologist testified this week at the B.C. public inquiry into the use of tasers, he didn’t mince words when asked about the Mounties’ decision to zap an unarmed Robert Dziekanski last October, and more recently, a penknife-wielding 82-year-old man lying in a hospital bed in Kamloops.
“I’m embarrassed to be associated with organizations that taser sick old men in hospital beds and confused immigrants who are arriving in the country,” said Mr. Webster, considered one of the top police psychologists in the world.
Even as the words spilled from his mouth, Mr. Webster knew they had the potential to cause him more trouble with the RCMP. He knew because of a chilling incident late last year that still hangs over his association with Canada’s national police force.
Mr. Webster is a registered psychologist who deals exclusively with law enforcement agencies. His expertise in conflict resolution has been sought to help resolve some of the most volatile situations in recent years, including the showdown with Branch Davidian followers in Waco, Tex., in 1993. He was widely credited with helping avert a bloodbath during the RCMP standoff with native protesters at Gustafson Lake, B.C., in 1995.
He has worked on a contract and fee-for-service basis with the RCMP for more than 30 years. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, much of his work with the Mounties has been in the area of intelligence gathering. After Mr. Dziekanski died at the Vancouver International Airport last October, media outlets in B.C. sought Mr. Webster’s opinion on the incident. He was honest: he thought it was a disgraceful display of policing. The officers had blasted the troubled Polish immigrant without making any attempt to resolve the matter peacefully.
In early December, Mr. Webster says he received a call from Richard Bent, chief superintendent of the RCMP E Division in Vancouver. The senior Mountie asked Mr. Webster, who lives on Denman Island, B.C., if the two could have a meeting. Mr. Webster knew something was amiss.
He wanted to know immediately what it was about.
“That’s when he said it was about the nature of my comments to the media about the Dziekanski incident,” Mr. Webster revealed in an interview Wednesday. “He said: ‘You’ve upset some of the members here and they’re saying things.’ I said, ‘Like what?’ And he said: ‘Well, they’re saying that maybe you shouldn’t be getting any more work with the RCMP.’”
Mike Webster nearly dropped the phone.
“There was only one way to interpret that comment,” Mr. Webster said. “It was a clear threat.”
Mr. Webster said he told Chief Supt. Bent that he didn’t respond well to threats. And that they wouldn’t change his mind in any event. After stewing about the incident over Christmas, Mr. Webster articulated his anger in a letter to Chief Supt. Bent, which he copied to Gary Bass, the RCMP’s top man in B.C. In it, he reiterated how offended he was by Chief Supt. Bent’s comments, which he considered a blatant form of intimidation.
He said he heard nothing back. But he did begin hearing from his friends inside the force. He said one relayed to him that Mr. Webster’s outspokenness cost the psychologist a small fee-for-service job. One of Mr. Webster’s friends was told: “Don’t be hiring Mike Webster. He’s in shit with us for being disloyal.”
Another told him to expect a call from a top RCMP official in Ottawa who was going to fly out to talk to him.
Sure enough, the call came. Two weeks later, Mr. Webster said he was having lunch with an RCMP inspector from headquarters who scolded him for his Dziekanski comments. He suggested the psychologist was being disloyal to an organization that had been good to him over the years. He said Mr. Webster should have waited until the RCMP had concluded its investigation into the incident before giving any kind of opinion on it.
“I told him I didn’t need anything more than the 25 seconds of video that we’ve all seen over and over again to offer my analysis,” Mr. Webster said. “I really gave him a blast. It was just more of the same. The expectation is that if you work for the Mounties you align your values with the corporate culture and if you don’t that’s being disloyal and is unhealthy.”
Chief Supt. Bent said in an e-mail Wednesday that he did phone Mr. Webster because of concerns that Mr. Webster was making statements to the media about the RCMP’s guidelines for handling potentially violent situations that he felt weren’t accurate.
He confirmed that he told Mr. Webster that other RCMP members were upset and didn’t want the Mounties to give the renowned intervention specialist any more work. He said it wasn’t intended to be a threat.
To Mr. Webster, his run-in with the Mounties reflects a more serious and systemic problem inside the organization, one recognized in the report into the RCMP pension-fund scandal. That report suggested the force was a troubled organization that did not abide dissent of any kind. And those who did offer opposing views were often shunted off to dead-end jobs and forced to wave promotions goodbye.
“As a psychologist, I know it’s not healthy for people to live in such an oppressive climate,” Mr. Webster said. “Being a member of the RCMP today is like being part of Putin’s Russia; they don’t tolerate any opinion that doesn’t reflect the party line.”
A devastating charge. Mr. Webster currently has a one-year contract with the Mounties. After it expires next April, he has no idea if more work will be offered to him.
“I find it offensive that I’m expected to park my morals at the door if I’m going to be part of the organization,” Mr. Webster said. “If that’s what it means, I won’t do it. I just won’t.”
Mike Webster has never operated that way.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Calvin Lawrence // May 15, 2008 at 10:14
People are all over the place with this discussion of the use of the taser.
The RCMP has a use of force model called the “Incident Management Intervention Model” (IMIM). The IMIM dictates when the use of the taser is acceptable. Keep in mind the behavior of the individual is open to interpretation of the threat, based on the police officers perception of that threat and the and abilities of that police officer. Once the taser is used, the police officer must verbally articulate the use of the taser through the IMIM. All discussions on the use of the taser should start by determining the behavior of the individual as it relates to the IMIM. Unfortunately there appears to be misuse of the taser keeping in mind the IMIM.
If the use of the taser was moved on the IMIM to “Fear of Death or Serious Bodily Harm” only, it would be acceptable to all. There are incidents where the firearm must be used but I am sure that all would agree that the taser would be and has been a more preferable response when possible.
Mr. Webster is experiencing the traits of a dysfunctional family (organization) as listed below.
• RCMP members compulsively protect their inner feelings
• Only certain feelings are ok to be openly expressed by the member
• Performance is more important than the member
• There are many taboo subjects and lots of secrets
• Everyone must conform to the highest ranking member’s ideas and values
• There is a great deal of control and shaming
• There are a lot of “shoulds” from the higher to the lower ranks.
• The rules are unclear, inconsistent, and rigid
• The atmosphere is frequently tense
• There is a great deal of anger and fear
• People feel tired hurt and disappointed
• A number of RCMP Members have low self-worth
• Coalitions form across generations(keeps repeating the process)
The above list is the traits of a dysfunctional family. These traits exist in all military and police organizations including the RCMP. What happens to people who criticizing the family? The family closes ranks and ostracizes the family member. The same process takes place in the RCMP organization.
Calvin Lawrence
CGL Consulting
2 NRF // May 15, 2008 at 17:29
Two plain-clothes RCMP threatened my son with drawn guns when he peered out the window after being awakened by noises in our front yard. The confused boy, dressed only in underwear, was captured inside his own home and treated as a dangerous offender.
Police later explained they were at the wrong address and should have been 3 properties north, responding to a neighbour’s security alarm.
This was not long after another North Shore youth was shot and killed while he was a bystander in a police entry gone mad. With memory of that, our family was shaken by the casual raising of guns against a young man offering no conceivable threat.
I called the RCMP detachment and asked to speak to a supervisor. Nobody would talk. I called E Division headquarters asking for a information about their policy for the use of handguns. I was told that my inquiry had to be raised in a Victoria office and they gave me a number that was “answered 24 hours a day.” Indeed it was - by a machine. I was invited to leave a detailed message.
A few minutes later, one of the RCMP officers involved in the inital gun incident phoned to complain about me making trouble, calling all around, demanding information about his actions. He implied unhappy consequences if I persisted.
I had thought that my inquiries to headquarters had fallen on deaf ears. Not so. The subject of my complaint was advised immediately. The brass wouldn’t talk to me but they certainly talked to their own cowboy.
I am reminded of this incident when reading about RCMP delays and subterfuge on the subject of taser use. I have witnessed how the organization works to protect itself even when certainly wrong.
3 Simon // May 15, 2008 at 19:34
First of all, Calvin, the “IMIM” does not give the authority for any police officer to use force. The authority stems from the Criminal Code; the IMIM is merely an interpretation of what is “reasonable” used for training purposes. Whose to say the IMIM is correct?
Secondly, this “dysfunctional family” line reeks of conspiracy theory. I don’t think the RCMP is organized enough to have “black lists” or secret intentions.
Rather, a collective opinion is formed when someone acts ridiculous enough to deserve said opinion. Here we have Mr. Webster watching a 25 second video and making accusations and conclusions without any background knowledge. That is unprofessional, especially since he should know that due to his position the media was sure to eat up whatever he served, especially if it was in the current “police bashing” trend.
A true professional would have waited until all the evidence was in and then make a conclusion. In failing to do so, Mr. Webster has undermined his reliability.
4 Simon // May 15, 2008 at 21:02
• RCMP members compulsively protect their inner feelings
Would you prefer that police officers openly wear their emotions on their sleeves and engage in group hugs on a daily basis?
• Only certain feelings are ok to be openly expressed by the member
In a work setting only certain feelings are okay to be openly expressed. In any organization, negative attitudes that do not advance the organization’s goals are not constructive and are inappropriate. When working as a team, everyone must know their role and perform within it. Stepping beyond those bounds is disruptive. There is a time and place for “venting” but airing one’s dirty laundry in not professional.
• Performance is more important than the member
Performance is important. Policing is a job that requires a high level of competence. And the RCMP has many members who are on YEARS of paid stress leave or medical leave. What evidence is there that those members aren’t getting more than taken care of?
• There are many taboo subjects and lots of secrets
Police work is the business of secrets.
• Everyone must conform to the highest ranking member’s ideas and values
This is called leadership and having management set clear goals. If everyone rejected management’s leadership and just did what they wanted (according their own ideas) nothing would ever get done. It is crucial for management to set the tone, set high standards, and demand a code of conduct in achieving those goals.
• There is a great deal of control and shaming
A paramilitary organization requires control. Not everyone can be in charge. As for shaming, how so? It seems the disciplinary process is anything but severe.
• There are a lot of “shoulds” from the higher to the lower ranks.
Shame on management for setting high standards for employees. Perhaps everyone should get to decide what they should do and there be no uniform standards?
What is desirable in a family setting is not necessarily appropriate in a professional work setting. The lack of those traits in a work setting does not make it “dysfunctional”.
I reject the idea that everyone has an intrinsic right to be completely happy at work all the time. There’s a reason it’s called “work”. The unrealistic expectation that life should be roses all the time has created a culture of entitlement that has caused serious damage to our work force.
5 Deepthroat // May 16, 2008 at 13:19
Webster has some credibility problems, and is becoming another one of the ‘talking heads’ we all just love. One too many body slams from the WWF I think.
6 Simon // May 18, 2008 at 23:29
Calvin, your understanding of the use of force is simplistic and misleading. The “IMIM” does dictate when a given use of force is acceptable; that authority comes from the Criminal Code which uses a standard of reasonableness and proportionality. The “IMIM” is merely an interpretation of what is generally considered “reasonable”.
Therefore, all discussions on the use of the taser should actually start by determining if the IMIM is reasonable, and therefore, if the police using the IMIM as a guide are acting reasonably.
Also, you keep mentioning this “dysfunctional family” comparison. I would say that behaviour that is desirable in a family setting is not necessarily desirable in a professional work setting.
In an organization when “Everyone must conform to the highest ranking member’s ideas and values” it means that there is clear leadership. If everyone was doing what they wanted the organization’s efforts would be unfocused and ineffective.
7 Norma // May 21, 2008 at 22:30
I am not in the least surprised by the behavior up upper management and the subtle threats and intimidation made by a high ranking officer. Although this is common practice within the organization it is not often they will do it to a professional who will actually have the courage to speak of it.
Dr. Webster I am sure has spoken with enough officers to know exactly how the ORG operates. I am aware of one case at this time where officers influenced a force psychologist to change her initial assessment of a member to suit their own purpose to have him discharged from the force. That is truly frightening when you think of how often members are referred to psychologists. I applaud Dr. Webster for standing his ground. I am sure knowing he cannot be influenced or manipulated by management within the RCMP has won him a much greater respect withing the membership of the RCMP.
Although these officers may want him to think his honesty might affect his future employment with them , in fact in might do the opposite. There are a lot of members within the force who support and respect Dr. Websters opinion and would agree with him. I believe Mr. Bent may have been referring to support within the higher ranks of the RCMP not the membership.
8 God Rocks // May 22, 2008 at 17:28
Long over due… It`s time people stood up for what is right instead of bowing to pear pressures, then and only then can we take pride in who represents us in police again. My hat off to you sir, and a big GBU!
9 Calvin Lawrence // May 29, 2008 at 16:07
Simon,
The topic of discussion is the use of the taser, not the authority for the use of force. RCMP officers are trained in the use of force and MUST be able to verbally articulate their use of force as it relates to the IMIM. This so important that a cadet at Depot cannot graduate unless he/she is able to do this.
I agree that no one can form an educated opinion looking at a short film clip of the incident. However, was he contacted by the RCMP and the conversation unfold as he states? Here again, two different topics.
Please do not be too quick to dismiss the dysfunctional organization theory. I did not make this up. I suggest that you read the book “Double Duty” by Claudia Black Ph.D..M.S.W. and the general writings and specific written submissions by Joseph F. Dietrich, Dr.P.H., C.A.C.. Dr. Dietrich started the RCMP’s Members Assistance Program and is one of the foremost authorities on policing and alcohol in the world. I have had many in depth conversations with him and have a binder of his submissions.
Before you can drink from my pitcher you must empty your cup. Please have an open mind.
Calvin Lawrence
CGL Consulting
You must log in to post a comment.