Const. Chris Garrett Medal Thread- Merged

[Thompson_JM]

All in all, the basic rules and regulations are written so that it works well for the majority of instances.
The two year rule is a reasonnable one & senior management should be held to follow the guidelines as best they can

THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, YOU DON'T BLINDLY FOLLOW RULES.

So they missed a two year deadline for whatever reason.... BIG DEAL!
Time to take off the blinders and do your job and evaluate the submission on it's own merit!
Artificial timelines are.... artificial.  The administrators who refuse to lift their nose from the paper's edge should have their weewee slapped hard and told to look after JOB ONE.

Thats Pretty much how I feel on this one as well...

hard and fast rules have their time and place. but this burecratic jug-flug isnt one of them...

 

[c_canuk]

reading this thread remindes me why I hate uncreative administrators... the fix is very simple

change the policy from:

Nominations must be made within two years of the incident.

to

Nominations must be made within two years of the incident, unless details must be withheld for court proceedings where nominations in that case must be made within two years after the final ruling.



Policy is not set in stone, it must be flexible and able to evolve or it ends up doing more harm than good. http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20071120.html

 

[Reccesoldier]

This isn't a matter of uncreative administrators.  This is a result of an order in council (read law) which has existed since the creation of this honour and others.

It's not an administrative wave of the red pen to change this, it is a legaly binding act and function of parliament.

The thing that is becomming clear here is that there is a groundswell, a popular emotive response has been kindled and fed by the hype around what is supposed to be an honours in confidence matter. 

I think that now, if this matter is allowed to procede and the council refuses to grant the honour there is going to be an equal or greater hue and cry that Officer Garrett has been done a diservice.  Or worse yet, there will be such pressure to grant the medal that it will be granted for the sake of optics and not for the sake of true merit.

Now before you all jump down my throat take a long hard look at the action in question.  Examine all those deaths in Afghanistan and every other death of a LEO KIA (227 to date) and tell me honestly and truthfully that THIS case and THIS officers death is more worthy and more deserving than the rest.

I can damn well guarantee that every other mother, brother, sister, wife and father of every soldier, sailor, airman or LEO who died selflessly in the line of duty is going to draw the undenyable conclusion that he or she deserves the same.

 

[MPIKE]

This isn't a matter of uncreative administrators.  This is a result of an order in council (read law) which has existed since the creation of this honour and others.

It's not an administrative wave of the red pen to change this, it is a legaly binding act and function of parliament.

The thing that is becomming clear here is that there is a groundswell, a popular emotive response has been kindled and fed by the hype around what is supposed to be an honours in confidence matter. 

I think that now, if this matter is allowed to procede and the council refuses to grant the honour there is going to be an equal or greater hue and cry that Officer Garrett has been done a diservice.  Or worse yet, there will be such pressure to grant the medal that it will be granted for the sake of optics and not for the sake of true merit.

Now before you all jump down my throat take a long hard look at the action in question.  Examine all those deaths in Afghanistan and every other death of a LEO KIA (227 to date) and tell me honestly and truthfully that THIS case and THIS officers death is more worthy and more deserving than the rest.

Reccesoldier,

As you had mentioned earlier you are in know in DH&R.  So that I may be better informed regarding this can you provide some source regarding the Act/order in council involving Honours/Awards. Is there Regs/procedures for this Privy Council committee that oversees the selection criteria?  I haven't had much luck looking via the net.

Secondly,  can you clarify your position for me.  Is your issue that that the event in question does not meet the criteria for the award?  My interpretation that it was the time limit imposed was the core issue here?.  As noted in the original article here; (is this not accurate?)

For those obsessed with rules - and the governor general and her department obviously qualify - there are two logical, rational and undeniable reasons to make an exception.

The first, as we have said, is the necessity to guarantee a fair trial. An application on Const. Garrett's behalf would have been made immediately after his death if not for that legal constraint, which trumps the award procedure.

Secondly, eligibility criteria for the Cross of Valour indicate only one reason for the two-year limit. It is intended to ensure facts, records and witness accounts are accurate and haven't been lost, purged or eroded by time. To make certain that is the case, "The Police Services investigate eligible cases to ensure that information is accurate."

You mention "the others" that may be slighted or affected by this motion for change.  Won't the eligibility on the deed speak for itself ?  There seems to two underlying trains of thought in this thread.  Garrett's eligibility for valour with his act and the adminstrative timeline imposed on valour awards.  I'm concerned with the latter as I feel the first is up to the review committee and not open for discussion by us. 

Thanks for your time

 

[Reccesoldier]

Reccesoldier,

As you had mentioned earlier you are in know in DH&R.  So that I may be better informed regarding this can you provide some source regarding the Act/order in council involving Honours/Awards. Is there Regs/procedures for this Privy Council committee that oversees the selection criteria?  I haven't had much luck looking via the net.

Open source:
http://www.gg.ca/honours/index_e.asp - GG's Honours page. (GG is responsible for the administration of Valour Medals and Orders)
http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/home_e.asp - (CF site, operational service medals including War medals)
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/index-e.html - Parliament's online record (Can search for Orders in Council for each and every medal.  Is hard to find the info sometimes but it is there)

DIN:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/Downloads/cfp200.pdf - The Bible...

Secondly,  can you clarify your position for me.  Is your issue that that the event in question does not meet the criteria for the award?  My interpretation that it was the time limit imposed was the core issue here?.  As noted in the original article here; (is this not accurate?)
You mention "the others" that may be slighted or affected by this motion for change.  Won't the eligibility on the deed speak for itself ?  There seems to two underlying trains of thought in this thread.  Garrett's eligibility for valour with his act and the administrative timeline imposed on valour awards.  I'm concerned with the latter as I feel the first is up to the review committee and not open for discussion by us.   

Thanks for your time

My position is and has always been that this would set a bad precedent.  If you read my comment reference the possible award of the honour I am quite clear in that I fear that the hype being created around this issue will detrimentally affect the proper functioning of the process. That, more than any other reason is why these nominations are supposed to be kept in confidence.  It's not just a suggestion by the way...

11. Except for the Order of Canada, which uses an
independent procedure (see Annex C), the
recommendations shall be:

e. designated Protected B and not divulged to
the individual or the individuals relatives in
accordance with Queen's Regulations and
Orders 18.05, or to any person unless such
information comes within the scope of that
person's duties.

The same procedure is in place for LEO's

As you say, the decision is up to the Committee, which is exactly why this whole sorted mess NEVER should have been made public.  The fact is as I said before, although all the "support" for this officer is ostensibly for him to be successfully nominated for the award it is being interpreted by most if not all of the ignorant masses as support for the actual award of the medal.

 

[geo]

Nominations must be made within two years of the incident, unless details must be withheld for court proceedings where nominations in that case must be made within two years after the final ruling.

Just because an incident is going through a court proceeding has absolutely no bearing on the submission of a recommendation for an Honour or Award.

ALL nominations are confidential and are never to be divulged to the intended recipient (or his / her family) prior to the official announcement of it's approval.

Too many times I have seen a grievance from someone that says that he has not received such and such a gong/device/doodad, whatever & they file a grievance over it.  A nomination is NOT an honour in of itself....

While the law says something .... courts make rulings and decide / modify laws all the time... that's the thing about our legal system.  The legislators enact a law and the courts adjudicate runlings on things that don't line up with "da law"....

It doesn't line up with the law..... so what... fix it & move on.

 

[c_canuk]

Just because an incident is going through a court proceeding has absolutely no bearing on the submission of a recommendation for an Honour or Award.

ALL nominations are confidential and are never to be divulged to the intended recipient (or his / her family) prior to the official announcement of it's approval.

And if a judge ruled that no details would be divulged outside the court room what then? or what if there is a simple error/mis filing and the medal is issued with details before the ruling is made, thus allowing the perp off on a technicality?

the problem was the police said they didn't file because they couldn't jeopardize the case, this is a legitimate concern and the spirit of the policy is to stop people from filing beyond the capacity of the organization to review the details which is not a problem in this case. A simple modification to allow for court proceedings is not going to change the spirit of the policy.

when you start overriding people and the spirit of the law and/or policy for the word of the law/policy you are perverting the original intent of the law/policy. When you refuse to modify policy to fit the situation you are making yourself obsolete.

I'm sure the person who came up with "no nominations after two years" did not mean even when the details need to be temporally kept confidential in order to follow the spirit of another law.

Just because a committee hasn't divulged information in the past does not mean a mistake or oversight might not be made in the future, thus confidentiality must be maintained.

It is asinine to disqualify all nominations that involve court proceedings over 2 years because those administrating it are too busy trying to prevent "bad precident" to the point that they will not review policy.

Inflexible policy over people is one of the greatest evils this world has faced. The policies of Stalin are one example of this.

 

[geo]

And if a judge ruled that no details would be divulged outside the court room what then? or what if there is a simple error/mis filing and the medal is issued with details before the ruling is made, thus allowing the perp off on a technicality?

the problem was the police said they didn't file because they couldn't jeopardize the case, this is a legitimate concern and the spirit of the policy is to stop people from filing beyond the capacity of the organization to review the details which is not a problem in this case. A simple modification to allow for court proceedings is not going to change the spirit of the policy.

when you start overriding people and the spirit of the law and/or policy for the word of the law/policy you are perverting the original intent of the law/policy. When you refuse to modify policy to fit the situation you are making yourself obsolete.

I'm sure the person who came up with "no nominations after two years" did not mean even when the details need to be temporally kept confidential in order to follow the spirit of another law.

Just because a committee hasn't divulged information in the past does not mean a mistake or oversight might not be made in the future, thus confidentiality must be maintained.

It is asinine to disqualify all nominations that involve court proceedings over 2 years because those administrating it are too busy trying to prevent "bad precident" to the point that they will not review policy.

Inflexible policy over people is one of the greatest evils this world has faced. The policies of Stalin are one example of this.

There have been decorations bestowed on people from CSIS in Canada and the CIA in the USA who'se acts of bravery will never be known.  The argument that some pencil pusher might accidently slip up and give up the goods to the press or the public is a hollow argument. 

 

[Roy Harding]

...

Inflexible policy over people is one of the greatest evils this world has faced. The policies of Stalin are one example of this.

You've got to be kidding me.  Your "Stalin" comment is just a little hyperbolic, don't you think?

Just to repeat myself, I think the submission should go forward in this case.  After the submission is accepted, the normal vetting takes place - I'm not advocating an automatic award to this particular police officer.  I'm aware that this would probably set a precedent that no one wants to deal with - and I'm NOT suggesting that the requirements for awarding this particular honour be set aside because of public pressure.

Having said (and repeated) all that - I'm done with this thread.  When someone can compare a simple, generally amicable, dispute about the application of policies regarding Honours and Awards to the policies and actions of Stalin; well, I just know that I'm no longer conversing with my peers.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If you want to zero in on Orders in Council, here's another place to search:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/oic-ddc/oic-ddc.asp?lang=EN

 

[c_canuk]

There have been decorations bestowed on people from CSIS in Canada and the CIA in the USA who'se acts of bravery will never be known.  The argument that some pencil pusher might accidental slip up and give up the goods to the press or the public is a hollow argument. 

CSIS has in the past accidentally released information that shouldn't have been.

We are all human and mistakes can and will be made, that is a constant. I fail to see why making a minor amendment to accommodate court orders is such a big deal.

I can imagine a Judge would be very upset if they issued an order not to discuss details outside the court and the police went ahead and did exactly that

Having said (and repeated) all that - I'm done with this thread.  When someone can compare a simple, generally amicable, dispute about the application of policies regarding Honours and Awards to the policies and actions of Stalin; well, I just know that I'm no longer conversing with my peers.

My point that the application of policy regardless of circumstance being the primary reason that Communism, a system of government that was supposed to be best for the people in theory, turned out to be one of the worst in history and thus following that same path probably is not a good way to conduct business, I wasn't implying the people taking an opposing view were stalinists  :

let me make a less grand point if you prefer.

By law littering is illegal, however do you think it reasonable to charge someone who lives within a zone where littering is a $25 000 finable offence if a storm blows roof shingles off their house onto the street? I don't think there are any storm clauses in the littering laws and they are there to protect the majority aren't they? Should the court in this case follow policy to the letter, or follow the spirit of the policy?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I think what is being offered on the pro side of this discussion is a simple application of common sense.  Why is the number set at two years anyway?  The provision was set as a way to ensure proper records keeping, but given how long cases take to come up and get settled I could see this becoming an issue.  So why not just change the time limit to five years?  This should be adequate for any cases that come up, and also avoid the "piling on" that some seem to be concerned with. 
However, even if "the floodgate"  : was opened, so what if every family applied?  Okay, some admin burden for someone somewhere.  Big deal.  A bottle neck occurs, the cases get sorted out and then it is done with.  This isn't the same administrative nightmare as it would be if this were applied to a military setting and it was involving members involved in wars.  Worst case scenario, you're looking at several hundred files to get through every officer killed in the line of duty in Canadian history.  And that is a pretty unlikely situation.  I know there are quite a few on-duty deaths that were medical or accidental.  I don't see those getting too far in the process. 
This file would still have to be reviewed and judged on its merit.  There is no reasonable cause for it not to be able to be submitted, other than a pedantic "but that's what the thing says-two years". 

 

[Old Ranger]

There is a web petion available.
I've signed and was in the 29000 range.

I will try and posty the link here before shift end.....depending on the Moon of course

Here's the link

Dear Friends,

I have just read and signed the online petition:

  "Cross of Valour for Const. Chris Garrett"

hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
service, at:

  http://www.PetitionOnline.com/05142004/

I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might
agree, too.  If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider
signing yourself.

Best wishes,

Ben Valentine



Ben

 

[geo]

35037  Done

 

[Reccesoldier]

However, even if "the floodgate"  : was opened, so what if every family applied?  Okay, some admin burden for someone somewhere.  Big deal.  A bottle neck occurs, the cases get sorted out and then it is done with.  This isn't the same administrative nightmare as it would be if this were applied to a military setting and it was involving members involved in wars.

You should preface you comment by telling us all just how much you know about the Medals section at DH&R and the Honours folks in Rideau Hall because apparently you have the idea that there are separate honours systems in Canada, one for Cops and one for Military.  You are dead wrong.  Any change to the Honours system affects everyone from Pte Bloggins to Constable Smith.  Oh, it also includes Joe or Jill Six-pack.

Or are you trying to say that only LEO's should be given such preferential treatment?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

You should preface you comment by telling us all just how much you know about the Medals section at DH&R and the Honours folks in Rideau Hall because apparently you have the idea that there are separate honours systems in Canada, one for Cops and one for Military.  You are dead wrong.  Any change to the Honours system affects everyone from Pte Bloggins to Constable Smith.  Oh, it also includes Joe or Jill Six-pack.

As a matter of fact I really know sweet dick all about the process, Recceinsider.  And that is news to me.  I was of the impression that police and military would have different systems.  Go figure.  But I still maintain that it shouldn't be that difficult to deal with.  So would this cause you personally more work? 

Or are you trying to say that only LEO's should be given such preferential treatment?

Nope.  Not even close.  However, I think I'm getting a pretty good pulse for where we rank in your world.

 

[Cheshire]

Just a few details that some of you may not know...........

.....after Chris had his throat slashed, the accused ran off, away from Garrett and the cruiser, Garrett tried to pursue. With one hand to his throat, bleeding to death, he had the sense to draw down on the kid, and fire off his entire magazine, the spread ran from one end of the hospital, to the other, following Troy's path. One round clipped Troy in the lower leg. After Garrett fell to the ground dying, Troy ran into the woods beside the hospital to retrieve a bag with a rifle and shotgun, went back to the officers body, tried to locate the keys to the cruiser but was unsuccessful. He is actually thought to have taken cover behind the officers body, for a brief period, with his rifle and shotgun at the ready, prepared to take out the next officers arriving on scene. He was then spooked by people coming out of their houses, and ran from the hospital grounds, to the bushes in front of homes on the west side of the Hospital. He then lay in wait as backup officers began arriving on scene. It is known, that as officers were roping off the scene, Troy was in the bushes, taking aim at officers putting up the police tape, with his loaded shotgun. His leg was bothering him so much, that he made his escape from the area, only to turn up at the Cobourg Hospital some ours later where he was arrested.

Now I am pretty sure that exceptions can be made in exceptional circumstances to place honor upon those people who do extraordinary things and save lives in the process. Many lives. Garrett not only saved the lives of his fellow officers that night, but of countless people in the community he was charged to protect. The GG can and should place this honour upon Chris.


Edited to add:
Afterall, rules are for the guidance of the wise men, and for the obedience of fools.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Thanks for that, brother.  Sounds like you get it.
Although, the merit of Chris getting the medal isn't being debated here.  It is the actual ability to submit an application for him to be considered.  There is an arbitrary two year time limit on submissions, and because they did the right thing and held off putting out critical details of the incident for fear of the case being jeopardized, Chris is paying yet again. 

 

[Reccesoldier]

As a matter of fact I really know sweet dick all about the process, Recceinsider.  And that is news to me.  I was of the impression that police and military would have different systems.

 

Well now you know.  

Go figure.  But I still maintain that it shouldn't be that difficult to deal with.  So would this cause you personally more work?

Nope, it wouldn't cost me a thing (anymore) but I at least have some knowledge about what your plan could entail.

Nope.  Not even close.  However, I think I'm getting a pretty good pulse for where we rank in your world.

Well you'd most likely be wrong.  

Don't bother getting on a high horse and assuming that because I disagree with your uninformed assessment of a system you admit very limited knowledge of, that I harbour some sort of infantile Cop envy or am anti-LEO because once again you would be wrong.

Nice infantile bastardisation of my user name by the way.  :

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Nice infantile bastardisation of my user name by the way.  :

Really?  I thought it was rather clever.

I guess what this boils down to is the issue of discretion.  To police, that is a huge principle that we deal with every day, and it governs most of the aspects of our job.  If one were to apply discretion to this case, it would not be an issue.  However, manically throwing out  :rules: is a bit of a tough pill to swallow, especially since the dead line was missed in good faith. 
Ultimately, someone else will decide and it will be done with.  I hope what is right and fair eventually prevails.