(CBC News) – The head of the RCMP said there will be changes to senior management after a review found that his own style of leadership is considered by some to be controversial and has caused tension within the force.
“It is also anticipated that we will be moving forward in the near future with a number of changes to the structure and makeup of our senior management team,” RCMP Commissioner William Elliott said in a staff email obtained by CBC News.
The proposed changes follow a completed review by former CSIS chief Reid Morden, who was hired to conduct an assessment after CBC News reported that some senior officers had accused Elliott of being verbally abusive, closed-minded, arrogant and insulting.
Elliott said that Morden found there was “an unhealthy level of tension and internal conflict” in the senior executive team and that those tensions escalated in the last month.
According to Elliott, Morden also reported that Elliott’s management style was seen by some as “controversial, while others supported it.”
As well, Elliott said Morden found that Elliott’s actions, on occasion, “caused tensions” and that other tensions emanated from the pace of progress of implementing the transformation plan.
He said Morden recognized that much has already been accomplished, but that senior management needs to accelerate its work in some areas.
That is so true. I would suggest that a few of the contributing factors are the present training, the promotion system, the shifts in some areas, the non resident officers (housing prices in some areas), young training officers, and as you mentioned too much specialization in some areas (community policing units in particular).
Can this issue be traced somewhat to the two government mantras of “do more with less”, “and all things to all people” and some senior RCMP officers mantra “no call too small”? I reiterate my objection to such activities as CPTED, bicycle safety marathons, on duty fund raising, etc. Police resources should be primarily for the detection and investigation of criminal activity, not for holding bake sales to raise money to replace the safety bear costume, or wandering school hallways for an entire shift.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
18
I agree with DT that the force should hire people that want to be real community cops, not just symbolic. A real hearts and minds strategy for the community.
It reminds me of the American vs the British military in their approach in how locals are treated in times of occupation. A former member of the British SAS once remarked how the Americans had a hearts and minds strategy when the camera’s were rolling, but once the fanfare died down, you never saw them. The British would go in and learn their language and provide medial assistance. The locals weren’t stupid and knew the difference. The same applies for the RCMP.
Having Safety bear going around and waving to everyone and handing out coloring books is no good if the local members aren’t approachable and friendly with members of the immediate public. I would also argue that having such specialized community positions tells members that they don’t have to do their part because it is already been taken care of.
In all the rural communities I am familiar with the RCMP doesn’t have the same rapport that it used to. Some possible reason for this are recruiting too many university educated city folk who are not gregarious enough in small towns. Or maybe it’s that the heavy paperwork of today is such a burden, they don’t have time to get out as much. Or maybe it’s because the older generation wasn’t as reliant on their radio car and it is too much of a barrier. Or maybe because the older generation didn’t grow up behind a computer and grew up actually talking to people face to face. Boomers are hands down more social than this generation.
Not sure of the reason members are not seen nearly as often as they used to, but there has been a change. Twenty-Thirty years ago the locals knew every member, now they hardly know any.
Members going into schools is nothing new and that has been happening for generations. But, it wasn’t an everyday occurrence and their arrival was low profile and wasn’t part of a photo op where a posse of TV and newspaper reporters show up. A police visit just seemed much more genuine and less political than it does today.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
8
RCMP officers have been part of the community for many decades. I would prefer to have someone involved in the functions of a given community by choice rather than periphery involvement to facilitate a promotion or some bureaucrats idea of a recruits’ training project. If a person is channeled by it being the right thing to do and is done willingly by those around them, it is all the more meaningful.
Before the advent of the specialized community policing units (empires?), RCMP officers regularly were part of the community fabric as sports coaches, volunteers and organizers. This was the type of individual you had. Making it mandatory or channeling persons into this special unit for finite periods of time is not the way to accomplish any form of real integration.
Is there even any empirical data to show that being in the schools lecturing on bicycle safety etc., has had any appreciable effect on preventing the percentage of miscreants?
For example, there are some convincing studies from the US that the DARE program is a failure. Should the officers be on the street and in the community instead?
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
18
“At the federal level, it is not a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act to terminate an individual’s employment because that individual has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in similar positions. Therefore, in those circumstances, as stated in the Act, mandatory retirement is permitted”
“Case law indicates that, in some circumstances, laws or government policies permitting mandatory retirement are justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (i.e., reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society). The cases to date focus on mandatory retirement in certain portions of the public sector. The case law is continuing to evolve.”
http://www.rhdcc-hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/lp/spila/clli/eslc/19Mandatory_Retirement.shtml
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
21
The problem with that would be that all the senior NCO’s would drop off like flies. As it is now, you have inexperienced police officers field coaching recruits. You have to have someone in there.
I also believe pre charter police are better cops because they learned how to adapt and overcome. They know how to talk their way into a car they have no right to search. Too many of the younger generation hide behind the charter as an excuse not to do their job.
I think it was 10 years ago some commissioner said “Community policing will not be fully implemented until all the 20 year guys are gone.” A retired corporal (who was pretty insulted at the time) told me that it was the 20 year guys who actually lived in the community and got involved in things like minor hockey to occupy the kids time and knew many of the residents.
Personally, I think the promotion, recruiting and training systems are the bigger issue.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
13
What Comm. Elliott should do, is make it mandatory that at 30 years of service, members are to be retired. Restructure the pension area to fit the current percentage payments. Members after 30 years of service are too set in their own self righteous ways to make change happen, as times are changing. The members with 30+ years of service went through Depot back in the 1970’s, which is totally different from today.
This would be a big step forward if the Force is to change.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
22