To pay or not to pay 鈥� that is the question the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board wrestled with this week in connection with the suspension of Chief Frank Elsner.
Elsner has been on paid leave since December while the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner conducts investigations into allegations of misconduct, including the exchanging of improper social-media messages with the wife of a subordinate officer and attempts to influence a potential witness and erase electronic records related to the allegations.
It is important to note that the investigations have not been completed and the allegations have not been substantiated.
It is a basic principle of our justice system that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Punishment should not be inflicted until a person is convicted. Taking away someone鈥檚 livelihood is punishment.
On the other hand, the suspended police chief is being paid at the rate of $207,000 a year 鈥� more than $17,000 a month 鈥� while the municipalities paying that salary are getting nothing in return.
The police board decided to continue paying Elsner鈥檚 salary and legal expenses, saying in a statement that: 鈥淭he Police Act provides that, except in exceptional circumstances, a suspension of a police officer is with pay.鈥�
But our reading of the Police Act finds no mention of exceptional circumstances. Yes, the act says a police officer is suspended with pay 鈥� 鈥渦nless subsection (5) applies,鈥� referring to the subsection that says: 鈥淚f at any time the board decides that it is in the public interest, the board may require that a suspension 鈥� be without pay or may discontinue the pay and allowances of the member under suspension.鈥�
In addition to paying Elsner鈥檚 salary, the board said it would continue to pay the chief鈥檚 legal fees, including those incurred in his filing of a petition in sa国际传媒 Supreme Court. He is seeking an order to stop the investigation into the social-media messages.
The board had to balance opposing principles 鈥� it goes contrary to presumption of innocence to stop Elsner鈥檚 pay, yet the public is stuck with paying a hefty salary and untallied legal costs. If the investigations do not go in Elsner鈥檚 favour, the taxpayers won鈥檛 get a refund.
While Elsner has not been found guilty, there is no doubt that he acted improperly. He publicly admitted to the inappropriate social-media exchanges and apologized, but his actions, minor or otherwise, triggered all that followed. Even if the consequences turn out to be far out of proportion to his error, it was he who put himself in harm鈥檚 way.
The situation was not helped by the mishandling of the case by mayors Lisa Helps and Barbara Desjardins, co-chairs of the police board, who tried to cover up or minimize what happened. It鈥檚 not difficult to see why they would do that. Elsner鈥檚 two predecessors were investigated for improper conduct 鈥� Victoria didn鈥檛 need another police-chief scandal, and the dynamic Elsner showed so much promise.
While it is not easy to balance Elsner鈥檚 rights with the public interest, there is a possible compromise. According to the Police Act, the board could have suspended Elsner鈥檚 pay pending the outcome of the investigations, reimbursing him if and when he is cleared. That would still be painful and inconvenient, but consider any suspect held without bail pending trial: That person has no opportunity to continue to earn a living and even if acquitted, has little chance of being reimbursed for lost income.
It鈥檚 understandable that the board would want to stand up for the police chief, but it must also stand up for the public interest.
