Cody ShimizuThe Edmonton Police Commission (EPC) serves as a police oversight body that connects the public to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS), stating on its own website that it “represents the citizens of Edmonton.” Public participation is therefore not an additional feature of these meetings but an integral part of how the commission is run. Despite this, it has gone against its own goals and banned public speakers from its remaining public meetings. Instead, those who want to ask questions can provide written submissions. But restricting public participation like this is not only a step away from the transparency the EPC claims to value, but a troubling step in the wrong direction for democracy.
This decision came after the meeting on July 16, where public speakers loudly walked out of the room, presenting signs of frustration, after a number of individuals had been cut off by the commission. Ben Henderson, EPC chair, shared that members of the public were personally defaming and attacking individual commissioners, and concern for safety was the main cause for stopping the public speaker portion. Henderson himself declined to present any such examples.
Thankfully, though, these meetings are available to the public for people to see for themselves. The only example of a direct callout was a speaker being told she was not adhering to the speaker policy when calling for the firing of Edmonton Police Chief Warren Driechel. As security removed her from the meeting, she said, “You guys suck.” This does not appear to reach the extreme levels of personal attacks Henderson alluded to.
The commission also repeatedly reminded speakers that certain topics were not within the EPC’s mandate and thus against the speaker policy to talk about. However, the commission was unclear about what the mandate allowed. When speakers spoke about Driechel’s trip to Israel, EPC was quick to mention the mandate. EPS’s use of Axon body cameras also led to the commission reminding speakers of the mandate. It’s important to note that these body cameras use Israeli artificial intelligence (AI) facial recognition. All in all, these seem like reasonable topics to bring up. EPC approved both Driechel’s trip and the use of the AI technology. It would follow common logic that the public should be able to ask about decisions EPC has made. But, it simply wasn’t the case.
Despite this, the commission continues to hold the position that discussions were moving towards what is happening in Israel and not specifically about Dreichel’s trip. The commission even stated that they already had public meetings about the trip and discussed it. March was the first public commission meeting on the topic. At this meeting, many speakers reiterated how this trip created mistrust with the EPS and division within the community. Chair Henderson acknowledged that they were committed to rebuilding any bridges that were broken and that there was a policy gap that would be revisited.
Currently, EPC has shared no updates regarding this policy gap, and the chief continues to echo that he has nothing to apologize for and that his main lesson from Israeli police was on “diverse community connection.” Concerned citizens continue to echo that Israel was the wrong choice for that lesson.
EPC needs to take the public’s concerns seriously. At the moment, it doesn’t seem to be the case. Acknowledgement without action won’t accomplish anything. A weakened community connection that the EPC is fostering will only worsen public frustration. Something needs to change.
This issue extends beyond the current concerns; it sets a troubling precedent for how the public will be able to raise concerns about policing in the future if public criticism becomes too difficult or uncomfortable for the commission. The inability of the public to question decisions made by the EPC under the claims that such concerns fall outside of its mandate also raises questions about the purpose of the speaker portion. If the EPC is serious about representing the public, it must show that commitment not only when public participation is convenient, but especially when it involves difficult conversations.
