Surrey Mayor Brenda Locke is threatening to call for an inquiry Monday night into the city鈥檚 policing transition debacle after discord between herself and Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth went from somewhat heated to volcanic on Monday morning.

鈥淪hame on Mike Farnworth,鈥� Locke told the Now-Leader, in response to an ultimatum the solicitor general issued June 19 to the City of Surrey that if he doesn鈥檛 see a corporate report related to Surrey鈥檚 policing issue by 1 p.m. today he will be 鈥渇orced to make a determination about what is necessary for safe and effective policing without it.鈥�

鈥淚t is critical that I receive this report,鈥� Farnworth said. 鈥淣ow is not the time to play games. The safety of people in Surrey is too important.鈥�

鈥淢inistry officials have advised the city that I need this report by 1 p.m. today to review it, or I will be forced to make a determination about what is necessary for safe and effective policing without it,鈥� he warned.

Locke is livid.

鈥淗e has to be very careful 鈥� you know what may well happen, and we may well see happen tonight, because I鈥檝e heard some of council talking about it, and that is to have an inquiry about what went so wrong. If you remember back four and a half years ago, this has not been appropriate, there has not been due process for the last long time.

鈥淲e are trying to put due process at the back end of a decision but regardless, this was the same minister that was there but he鈥檚 had five directors of police services in the meantime.鈥�

Locke slammed Farnworth for 鈥渘ever, ever鈥� returning her phone calls. 鈥淚 phoned him after the meeting because at that point we didn鈥檛 even know the outcome of the decision. I phoned him, I phoned Eby, they both told me they would not talk to me until they got the report. That鈥檚 not their report, it鈥檚 not their authority.鈥�

The mayor said it was her authority to call a meeting to make a decision, which she did this past Thursday, in which council voted in-camera to retain the RCMP as the city鈥檚 police of jurisdiction rather than forge ahead with the Surrey Police Service.

鈥淚t was Mr. Farnworth who said Surrey council had to hurry up and make the decision so I called the meeting to make a decision and then they said but only make it if it鈥檚 the decision I want you to make. Well that鈥檚 not how it works. He gave us two options, we made a decision based on our information. Not his information, the City of Surrey鈥檚 information. So until he understands that under the Community Charter I have a responsibility, and a requirement and an authority, he is actually declaring war on the city of Surrey. I鈥檓 appalled at the behavior of this solicitor general, I am shocked that the premier is going along with it.鈥�

As for the June 15 closed-session vote, Locke said, Farnworth had put two options before council, A and B, 鈥渁nd we were voting on A or B.鈥�

鈥淭hat corporate report is not for the minister. That corporate report is not for him to tell us what information he wants us to have, it鈥檚 for us to say what to say what our staff find out for us. We鈥檙e on the ground, he鈥檚 not, he鈥檚 in Victoria, he doesn鈥檛 know Surrey 鈥� we know Surrey. We voted on what we know.鈥�

Farnworth wrote in his statement released Monday that as the solicitor general he needs to review the city鈥檚 plan to ensure it meets the requirements for safe and effective policing. 鈥淚 have been very clear about this,鈥� he stressed.

鈥淚 became concerned on Wednesday when I learned city staff were preparing to present a report to city council about future policing in Surrey that had not been shared with the Province. Unfortunately, I also learned that city staff were directed to not provide it to my ministry officials.

鈥淚 asked the mayor to share the report and wait to hold a vote until we could agree on what was safest for people in Surrey, based on the requirements for adequate and effective policing.

鈥淚nstead, on Thursday, the city council voted on the report before the Province had seen it and before I had the chance to determine if it will ensure safe and effective policing.

鈥淭he city has since been delaying giving us the report to review. First, it was promised by noon Friday, then by end of day Friday. My staff requested the report throughout the weekend. We have still received nothing.鈥�

Locke wouldn鈥檛 reveal the breakdown of the vote but said it could be released if council passed a motion to that end.

鈥淲e can鈥檛 even say that,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e can鈥檛 say anything out of closed. That鈥檚 the one thing that鈥檚 very clear, we cannot release information out of closed unless there鈥檚 a motion to do so. There was a motion for me to release information out of closed; I can tell you that I鈥檓 very happy with the vote that came to us, I can tell you that, but I can鈥檛 tell you what it was. We may make that determination, we can make a vote to do that, but to be frank, we were trying get through a process to do it as fast as we could at the directive of this solicitor general saying hurry up and make a decision.

鈥淭here was a lot of pressure and I kept saying we will have it done by the end of June and then when we do it by the end of June, because it鈥檚 not the information or it鈥檚 not the decision this solicitor general wants, then he gets upset about it and he starts playing these games. The games are not our games, the games are on the provincial government. And so am I angry? I鈥檓 pretty angry.鈥�

Locke said the vote was done in closed because council signed non-disclosure agreements at the provincial government鈥檚 request, in order to receive an unredacted containing his recommendation that Surrey should forge ahead with the Surrey Police Service.

鈥淚 said we don鈥檛 want to sign these NDAs because it restricts us so much about what we can say. I wanted from the get-go we wanted to be transparent about this process but he obviously didn鈥檛 want that.鈥�

Meantime, the Surrey Police Union called on Surrey Connect Coun. Rob Stuff, a former Surrey Mountie, to recuse himself from voting on the policing decision until the City of Surrey Ethics Commissioner finalizes a decision on a complaint against him.

In February the union filed a complaint with the commissioner alleging conflict-of-interest on Stutt鈥檚 part. Its president Rob Stewart issued a statement charging that Stutt voted to end the transition to Surrey Police Service from the Surrey RCMP without disclosing that his son is employed by the Surrey RCMP and his daughter is seconded from the City of Surrey and assigned to the RCMP. Nor did Stutt recuse himself, Steward stated.

Surrey Connect promised during its election campaign to bring transparency to city hall but it鈥檚 not known if Stutt voted, and if he did, how he voted during Thursday鈥檚 closed meeting.

鈥淲hat I will say to you is, the vote on, I mean you can look at the vote that happened on December I can鈥檛 remember, that vote was 6-3,鈥� Locke said. 鈥淚 can鈥檛 tell you about the issue around Rob Stutt and quite frankly nobody should, that is something between the ethics commissioner and councillor Stutt and the determination of that will be in the public at some point.鈥�

tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on   and follow Tom on