The Sausage Factory
Okay, so this story from The Toronto Star tends to support my bleeding-heart, small-l liberal leanings on crime and punishment, but I think it makes for damn good reading. Consider this glimpse of a state that tried to use more and longer prison sentences to clean up its streets. Nice work Betsy Powell.
-30-
Wednesday is NOT expected to be a big day at the inquiry. Commission counsel has indicated he would like to get through four witnesses today. Given that there is usually a fairly long (1.5-2.0 hr) direct examination, and then cross examinations by three or four other lawyers (for WPS officers, this includes Taman family lawyer, and lawyers for WPA, WPS and Derek Harvey-Zenk) and then a re-direct by commission counsel, that is one ambitious plan.
I say Not expected to be a big day because we’re hearing from four additional cops who were at Sgt. Sean Black’s house the night and early morning before Crystal Taman was killed by Harvey-Zenk. As has been noted in the blog and in dead-tree columns, the testimony has been improbably consistent. All have forgotten the same things, all remember the same things and all have used the same language to explain why their memories are so unreliable.
If the inquiry completes the work load it has set for today, then Thursday could be a very interesting day. We are scheduled to hear from two investigators from the WPS Professional Standards Unit, which was inexplicably called in to help with the criminal investigation of Harvey-Zenk.
More later.
-30-
Many of the officers drinking the night Crystal Taman was killed claim they were drinking pints of beer at Branigan’s restaurant. One of those officers, Cst. Dave Harding, said he had about five pints in two hours at the restaurant. For the record:
1 pint = 550 ml
5 pints = 2.75 l
1 bottle = 341 ml
5 pints = 8 bottles of beer
In two hours. That’s one bottle of beer every 15 minutes for two hours.
-30-
A fascinating beginning to Tuesday’s proceedings.
First, commission counsel David Paciocco revealed that the “investigative matter” that arose the day before - and which required an early adjournment - was an interview with Tracy Fudge, another of the police officers who partied with Derek Harvey-Zenk the night and early morning before Crystal Taman was killed. Essentially, she was allowed to testify in-camera because she is working undercover and could not appear in public at the inquiry. Her testimony, and an earlier statement to the commission, have been entered as evidence for all to read.
Paciocco brought up a second matter that will likely end up being the news of the day. Paciocco told Commissioner Roger Salhany that he is having trouble getting the Winnipeg Police Service to turn over all of its documents related to Derek Harvey-Zenk. Paciocco had to ask Salhany to caution the WPS to read the terms of reference of the inquiry, and rules for disclose, and turn over a series of additional documents it is withholding.
Shannon Hanlin, WPS counsel, made a brief but futile attempt to argue the documents were not relevant. She said the documents in question deal with adminstrative matters related to internal dealings with Harvey-Zenk, and not the investigation of Crystal Taman’s death.
Salhany would have none of it. He ordered the WPS to turn over the documents and if it turned out they were not relevant, he would return them and they would not be revealed at the inquiry. Hanlin retreated to her chair.
This is not the first time the WPS has been spanked for not disclosing all relevant information. In the James Driskell and Thomas Sophonow cases, the police were summarily criticized for withholding various internal reports. It boggles the mind how, after being so roundly slapped for those cases, the WPS could fall into the same trap again.
Read more on this in my column in tomorrow’s dead-tree FP.
*****
Testimony continues this morning with Cst. Dave Harding, another of the officers who drank the night and early morning hours away with Harvey-Zenk. News flash - Harding couldn’t actually remember seeing anyone drinking that night, didn’t know if anyone was intoxicated, and had no specific knowledge of Harvey-Zenk’s condition when he departed the party just before 7 AM.
The most damaging part of Harding’s testimony is related, as it turns out, to Fudge’s in-camera testimony. She said after leaving Black’s house, the returned to a restaurant parking lot where Harding had left his car. According to Fudge’s in-camera testimony, Harding was still intoxicated and was intent on driving home. Fudge said she and another officer had to “wrestle” Harding’s keys away from him.
The plot thickens.
More later.
-30-
From this morning’s hearing….
News from Commission Counsel David Paciocco that today’s proceedings will adjourn at 3 PM so additional investigation can be undertaken on a matter that has just arisen. The room tingles with curiousity…
In other matters, Sgt. Sean Black finished his testimony this morning. Under cross examination by his lawyers - there are counsel from both the Winnipeg Police Service and the Winnipeg Police Association - he did little to rehabilitate his tattered reputation before this inquiry. He continued to maintain he had no recollection of how much alcohol was consumed and by whom at the house party he hosted in the early morning hours of February 25, 2005, the morning Crystal Taman was killed. He did, however, have a photographic memory about how Derek Harvey-Zenk, the man who killed Taman, slipped out of the house at about 7 AM while Black was in the bathroom. And despite knowing who drank what, he was quite clear that Harvey-Zenk did not appear intoxicated.
The inquiry was to hear from Const. Ken Azaransky, a good friend of Black’s and one of the guests at the house party. Black’s testimony finished about an hour early but when they went to call Azaransky, he was nowhere to be found. “Isn’t he required to be here by subpoena,” a cranky inquiry commissioner Roger Salhany asked? Yes, a sheepish cop lawyer responded.
In a forum that has been pretty hostile to the cops, not showing up for testimony is a bad strategy if you hope to curry any sympathy from the commissioner.
More to come from today’s hearings….
-30-
We have heard from the developers, political leaders and inner-city activists about the future of Point Douglas. We even heard in the dead-tree FP from a roaving band of urban planners from other cities. (Wow, now that’s a street gang. But I digress.) But what of the hard-core, business types? What is the economic analysis of what’s best for Point Douglas?
One source for such an analysis is Michael Porter, the Harvard Business School’s guru of inner city development, who has written extensively about how to revitalize inner cities. Porter’s arguments were brought to my attention recently by Jino Distasio, director of the Institute of Urban Studies at the University of Winnipeg and one hip dude when it comes to the leading edge of thinking about inner cities and revitalization.
Porter has organized the Institute for a Competitive Inner City, a think tank within the business school that studies various models for re-inventing the cores of the largest American cities. Porter argues that effective revitalization comes from the careful marriage of existing residents and businesses that need what those residents have to offer. Porter believes there is a competitive advantage for business in the inner city, if government looks to find the right partners instead of forcing the issue with unsustainable incentives.
“A sustainable economic base can be created in the inner city,” Porter writes, “but only as it has been created elsewhere: through private, for-profit initiatives and investment based on economic self-interest and genuine competitive advantage - not through artificial inducements, charity, or government mandates.”
In his seminal treatise on revitalization, The Competitive Advantage of the Inner City, Porter describes a number of case studies to prove his point. In one, he examines how New York City offered substantial financial incentives to a multimedia computer manufacturer to relocate in particularly rundown parts of the South Bronx. The company moved to the Bronx with hopes that both it and the neighbourhood would benefit.
Unfortunately, this company had no real connection to the neighbourhood in which it was located. None of the company’s suppliers or clients was located nearby. The company’s clients expressed concern about travelling to a “rough” neighbourhood to meet. After a few years, the company relocated.
Porter counters this tale of failure with a number of examples of successful revitalization efforts. In more than one American city, Porter recorded how a grocery store chain started by a group of Cuban-American investors thrived in Boston by locating in neighbourhoods with a predominant Latino population and then offering an extensive selection of Latino foods not available in conventional supermarkets. The stores were not only popular shopping destinations, but they found a willing and motivated workforce within blocks of each location. By employing and catering to the local residents, the stores did a booming business, retained a motivated workforce and were less likely to be hit by vandals and thieves.
Porter does not expressly pan the idea of mega projects in his article. He does describe one success story in Atlanta involving a company that made trade show displays and exhibits locating in a rougher neighbourhood to be closer to a new government-built convention centre. The combination of low overhead, a motivated local workforce and proximity to the principal convention facility spelled success for this one business.
What would Porter make of Winnipeg, and the South Point Douglas plan? Competitive Advantage of the Inner City makes no reference to large, government-funded sports and recreation facilities, although his citing of the Atlanta example does seem to indicate that almost any kind of development could be justified if you could ensure that it matched up well with the neighbourhood in which it was located.
In the case of South Point Douglas, the only ambitious plan unveiled to date is Asper’s stadium-hotel/water park proposal. It is so different from what exists now in Point Douglas, there are concerns it is incongruous. And no matter how you look at the Asper plan, it generally means eradicating some of the historic properties and converting the land into a bold, upscale vision the likes of which has never been seen in this city. Would this proposal achieve an affinity with the locals? Well, not with those people who chose to be in Point Douglas because it is the neighbourhood that time forgot. But, it might to others who see hotels, water parks and stadiums as places that provide employment. Even for those of us who kinda liked Asper’s proposal, those are pretty long bows to draw. The fact is, these arguments are pretty academic until we see a firmer proposal.
The Porter arguments frame the debate in Point Douglas in an interesting way. In Porter’s world, you can see that the light industrial lands that exist in Point Douglas might continue to host light-industrial tenants, because of its central location and proximity to a wide range of other businesses. Could Point Douglas support and information/computer technology cluster? Or, how about bio-technology - could Point Douglas be located near enough to the Health Sciences Centre and National Microbiology Laboratories to be an off-shoot pod of BioMed City? According to Porter, the kind of development that might really work in Point Douglas might be something neither Asper nor the existing residents would relish.
The one thing Porter does not discuss in his article is the creation of new residential neighbourhoods around struggling residential neighbourhoods as some think Point Douglas should embrace. Creating Fort Rouge or River Heights on the Point seems like an interesting idea, but it doesn’t appear it would get done without massive government investment to acquire and prepare the land. Of course, that is the only thing that Porter believes government should be doing. No tax hand outs, no grants, no development incentives. Buy the land, remediate the land, and get it ready for development. Then sell it off and let people go do their thing.
I will endeavour to track down the good Mr. Porter to see what he thinks about re-inventing residential neighbourhoods and mega projects. Until then, he’s provided some interesting food for thought.
-30-
As a surprise for those in the gallery at the Taman inquiry this morning, Winnipeg Police Chief Keith McCaskill was called as a witness. McCaskill was head honcho at District 13, and the superior officer of Derek Harvey-Zenk, the man who killed Crystal Taman. It was learned last week that East St. Paul police chief Harry Bakema, a veteran of District 13 himself, called McCaskill to give him the head’s up on February 25, 2005, that Harvey-Zenk was charged with a variety of offences in connection with Taman’s death.
McCaskill was credible as a witness, but showed once again that from top to bottom in the police service, cops just can’t acknowledge the difficulty they have ratting out one of their own, even if they are charged with a criminal offence. McCaskill acknowledged that he warned his troops, especially those at an all-night drinking party with Harvey-Zenk, to come forward and tell the truth. And yet, when questioned directly at the inquiry, McCaskill said this wasn’t because he was concerned the officers would tell the truth.
That is the kind of incredible testimony that has afflicted this testimony since its beginning. By now, if we know anything, it’s that cops in both East St. Paul and Winnipeg were conflicted about where their loyalties lay. The investigation was completely botched, perhaps delibertely to give Harvey-Zenk a break. And Winnipeg police officers at the party will, we expect, say they were not drunk, nobody was drunk, and dispute the theory Harvey-Zenk was drunk when he plowed into the back of Taman’s car. This despite growing circumstantial evidence suggesting heavy drinking that night and no other explanation for how a cop out on an all-night bender could drive his car, without breaking, into the rear end of another.
Please see more on this subject in tomorrow’s dead-tree edition.
-30-
I’ll start with a random thought about the $7 million city grant for a water park, and the sudden (but hardly unexpected) realization that an attraction water park is not - REPEAT NOT - an activity the civic government should be involved in funding. So many, many bloggers have already made this point that if consensus counts for anything, the city and Mayor Sam Katz should be worried about the wide range of political ideologies and perspectives that together believe this is a bad idea.
The simple fact is that this money should not have gone to a commercial enterprise. There isn’t a major indoor water park in Winnipeg now. The first entrepreneur to build one is going to be overwhelmed with pent up demand from families desperate for family activities, especially in the winter months. As it is, many Winnipeg hotels with simple pools and slides see a pretty good business on the weekends from birthday parties and weekend inter-city getaways.
This is bad policy. Bad policy. Bad policy.
*****
Kudos to the Policy Frog for his pointed assault on Manitoba Public Insurance for its poor decision not to fund a bike safety program. MPI is all about vehicle safety, or so says MPI spokesman Brian Smiley. Yes, but it’s really about a whole lot more than that.
I have been waging a lonely battle in the dead-tree FP to get MPI to explain its lack of effective programming in the area of road safety. MPI will (correctly IMHO) impose immobilizers on the driving public, but it won’t help fund the reconstruction of black-spot intersection, the erection of new signage or traffic signals, or the addition of “rumble strips” and barriers on our highways. Why? According to MPI, it’s outside the crown corporation’s mandate.
Really? Let’s look at what’s in the mandate: Funding crown attorneys to prosecute car thieves; advertising on radio programs (anyone take note of the ‘MPI traffic reports’ that litter the airwaves each morning and evening; and my favourite, driver education.
In one previous examination of this issue, I found out that MPI did a study of the efficacy of its own driver ed program, and found what other studies worldwide have found: kids who take driver’s ed get into more accidents on average than those who don’t. It’s a complex equation, but the best theory is that kids that take DE driver sooner and with more confidence, and as a result they take more risks, get into more accidents. Road safety advocates believe that in addition to DE, insurance companies should drop feel-good promotional activities (like giveaways for charity golf tournaments) and start funding intersection re-design and highway patrol units.
There is a big problem with MPI and what it considers in and out of its mandate. Nice work Frog.
*****
More wifi ranting? You bet.
Tried to hook up through my Telus Hotspot account. I maintain several to give me maximum coverage. The system is down in downtown this morning, the nice man on the Hotspot customer service 800-number tells me. Okay, can you credit me an extra day? Sure, I’ll give you a number that will access a 24-hour coupon to be used anytime. Okey-dokey - can you email me the number?
Nope, he says. Don’t have access to the Internet where I am.
Shut the front door, once again! So let’s review my recent wifi experiences:
There was the city-owned Winnipeg Convention Centre that wanted to charge $100 for two days of access, and couldn’t allow you to sign up on line - you had to call the business office.
Then there was the restaurant downtown that shut down its wifi over lunch to stop cheap-ass wifi junkies from accessing it during the busiest part of the day, ignoring that some paying customers also want wifi;
And now, a Telus Hotspot customer service rep that doesn’t have access to the Internet.
I’m getting out the tin cans and the string. Less range, more reliable.
-30-
This morning, former Branigan’s server Chelsea O’Halloran testified. She single-handedly served the 20+ cops from Division 13 who came into party at Branigans late on February 24, 2005, a group that included Derek Harvey-Zenk, the officer who eight hours later would drive his truck into the back of Crystal Taman’s car, killing her.
What is amazing about the now 24-year-old O’Halloran is how clearly and concisely she answered questions. She very precisely described how drunk the cops were that night, and how some of them acted rudely toward her. And how they talked about leaving Branigan’s and going off to an after party. She also admitted she deliberately left out many of these details when she gave a statement to Winnipeg police two weeks after the accident. She said she had been encouraged by her boss at the restaurant - a good friend of some of the cops - to “play dumb” to spare the restaurant and the cops any trouble. She came forward after guilt and the Taman family’s suffering prompted her to tell the truth.
Her performance stands in stark contrast to the bumbling, memory-challenged performance of former East St. Paul Police Chief Harry Bakema, who seemed at times that he wouldn’t be able to remember his own name.
The constrast in styles of testimony is certainly speaking volumes to those of us observing the proceedings.
-30-
Occasional breaking dispatches from the Taman inquiry for Monday July 14:
East St. Paul Chief Norm Carter finished up this morning. Over three days of sometimes gruelling questioning, Carter was forced to admit his contributions to one of the sloppiest criminal investigations ever. And yet, it’s hard to get away from the fact that Carter was at least trying to be a good cop. It appears the combination of a horrible fatality, and the involvement of an off-duty Winnipeg cop, combined to create a hurricane that Carter couldn’t contain or effectively navigate. He did make mistakes in handling the suspect, Derek Harvey-Zenk, messed up his notes and made poor decisions about how to conduct the investigation. But did he sink the case against Harvey-Zenk? No.
This afternoon, we’re supposed to hear from former ESP chief Harry Bakema, and it’s going to get pretty interesting from this point on. Bakema has been soundly, roundly criticized by many witnesses. The testimony has been so bad for him to date that he’s been painted into a pretty tight corner. Several witnesses have essentially suggested Bakema tried to scuttle the case against Harvey-Zenk to help a fellow cop. Others testified he was just plain incompetent. Bakema will likely offer a lot of spice to the inquiry - it’s expected he’s going to point a lot of accusing fingers back at his accusers.
Stay tuned.
