Are they worse than McCormack? The Toronto Police Union President Candidates

Summary of their platforms

Art by Author (2020)

Update: Jon Reid won by 86 votes with over 5000 cast. The close runner-up was Andrew Nanton. Since writing this article I did a more thorough search of Jon Reid’s policing background, which turned up quite a bit requiring its own separate article here.

With broad calls for reforming policing across North America, the next Toronto Police Association (TPA) president will have a major role to play in how that pans out. Toronto police officers vote to elect the TPA president, so this will be an indication of whether they want someone who fights for or against police reforms.

Previous TPA presidents have generally fought against reforms and put great effort and money into bending politicians to their will. For example, in 2018 the union paid for ads with the faces of Toronto police board members (Mayor John Tory, Police Chief Mark Saunders, and Police Services Board Chair Andrew Pringle) plastered front and center, blaming them for longer 911 call wait times due to police budget cuts.

“It is a throwback to the old days of police union bosses trying to bully people. Imagine having blood splattered behind us in the form of 911,” — Toronto Mayor John Tory.

The TPA then held a no-confidence vote on Mark Saunders’ leadership because he supported reducing the number of police officers in an effort to make the force more efficient and modern. The police chief is hired by the police board to prioritize what is in the best interest of the city, not the members of the police force. This no-confidence vote therefore had no actual power; it was merely a publicity stunt meant to put pressure on the police board to stop budget cuts.

Police that treat civilians and elected politicians as their enemy are doing the exact opposite of their stated purpose: serving and protecting the city and its people.

Politicians are elected by the people and are tasked with voting on matters to do with police policies and their budget. Decisions on policing should be decided based on what’s best for the city and its constituents, not the members of the police force. Allowing police unions to interfere in politics negatively impacts the functioning of our democracy.

Intimidating politicians could be considered illegal: The Public Service of Ontario Act says public servants must not “associate his or her position with political activity” or “engage in political activity while wearing a uniform associated with a position in the public service of Ontario.” However, unfortunately TPA presidents — who are police officers “on leave” — are seldom disciplined for this behaviour.

TPA presidents also tend to support and pay for the legal fees of cops accused of misconduct, but not for cops that are the victims of misconduct. This is not a surprise considering the past presidents’ long rap sheets of unethical behaviour and misconduct.

The last TPA president, Mike McCormack, retired early, likely due to the storm of controversies plaguing the police at the time. McCormack was under scrutiny (by his own police force) concerning the sale of the police union building to some shady Toronto developers. Around that time, a Human Rights Tribunal concluded that sexual harassment was likely a pervasive issue among Toronto police forces. Lastly, the historic Black Lives Matter protests were sweeping across North America to protest police brutality and immunity.

So, will the next president be any different? Here are the four candidates that have put their name forward publicly that I was able to locate (TLDR summary at the end). I will continue to update this as more information emerges.

The Candidates

Andrew Nanton: 51 Division TPA Stewart (past 51 Division Det. Const.)

Nanton’s social media platforms are private, which is an odd choice for someone running for union president. One of his tweets (leaked here) states that he will “target” Toronto politicians he deems “dangerous”, such as Kristyn Wong-Tam and Mike Layton.

On his blog he echoes these statements saying:

We are under attack from politicians, the media, upper management, and the anti-police radical left. I will hold all these stakeholders accountable.

When the decision makers and media hit us, we need to hit back harder. I will be that person as your President.

More now than ever we need a strong voice. Someone dedicated to ONLY serving our best interests. Elect me to give the Association back to the you. — Andrew Nanton

Nanton is threatening to use his power as TPA president to intimidate and target Toronto politicians and police upper management.

Although Nanton is still a police officer (on leave), his ONLY concern is other police officers; not whether his actions will further negatively impact police-community relations, the city’s citizens, or the functioning of the city.

Not only that, he believes that Mike McCormack did not do enough over the last decade to challenge those who opposed them.

Nanton also says he is the co-founder of “Gloves Up”, which appears to be a rebirth of the controversial “Fite Nite”—an event where police officers could box each other for charity and bragging rights. Fite Nite was co-founded by the last TPA president Mike McCormack but was shut down after an officer was hospitalized in 2009. Money raised by Gloves Up goes to “Toronto Beyond the Blue”, which serves “spouses & families” of Toronto police and to “promote an awareness of our officer’s worth”. Gloves Up is sponsored by Craig Bromell; another TPA president alum who has the most serious rap sheet of any past president.

Nanton comes from 51 Division, which has been the subject in recent years for having a sexist and racist workplace culture (see Const. Firouzeh “Effy” Zarabi-Majd’s allegations here).

This candidate can be summed up as someone who will likely run the TPA similarly to Craig Bromell, who was well known as having a hostile police versus “others” mentality. Here is a quote from Bromell’s blog The Copfather (clearly implying he sees himself as the mob boss of cops), which is very similar to Nanton’s statements:

…We are all BLUE. If one is attacked we are all attacked. We will all fight back.…Police should have that ‘Wolf pack mentality’. Take on the ‘cop haters’ and demand respect. Whether that is from a special interest group, politician or media outlet. If they unjustly harass us we will fight back as one…All we have is each other and we demand respect. — Craig Bromell

You can read Nanton’s whole platform here.

Jonathan Reid: TPA Director (past Sgt. Det. in 11, 13, and 14 Division)

Jon Reid seems to have all of his social media platforms public, so at very least he is exhibiting more transparency that Nanton. Similar to Nanton though, Reid views politicians and public opinion as against police and that their hostility must be “stopped”.

The storm is made worse by our members seeing politicians and policy makers who betray us…not necessarily by speaking out against us, but by their silence and action of kneeling at the alter of public opinion. This storm of media, political and public hostility must stop. —Jon Reid

He states that “progressive change” and “better protection and care of our members” is needed.

Progressive change is needed. Better protection and care of our members is needed. We are all in agreement about that, but how we go about effecting change is a very different thing from just talking about it. Change that will positively affect TPA members, can be brought about only by the successful challenge and negotiation of policy, politicians, media, management and public opinion. — Jon Reid

He also appears to want to continue paying for the legal fees of those accused of misconduct or charged with crimes, but does not seem to want to cover the costs of Human Rights Tribunals (often associated with victim officers), i.e., maintaining the status quo.

I work hard to ensure that members have excellent legal representation in SIU, OIPRD and Professional Standard matters. — Jon Reid

Reid wants to create an “in-house media team” to “accurately represent police matters by putting out a positive and truthful representation of our members, incidents and occurrences“, so that the police are not at the “the mercy of news and media organizations hell bent on inciting public hostility towards us.”

He also stated he wants to ensure that Special Constables “remain free from SIU oversight and receive suspension WITH pay!” i.e., maintain the status quo of less civilian oversight for Special Constables.

The details of what Reid views as “progressive change” are vague. For all we know, he could view progress as clawing back civilian oversight, increasing police budgets and power, and intimidating politicians. Given that one of the few specific goals Reid has outlined is wanting to hire a media team to portray a positive image of the police and that he is generally supportive of maintaining the status quo: Reid is likely more concerned about changing the police force’s image instead of actually changing police policies.

You can read Reid’s whole platform here.

Ron Chhinzer: Det. Const. in Integrated Gang Prevention Task Force

Again, unlike Nanton, Chhinzer has public social media. And similar to the other candidates, he prioritizes combatting “the anti-police narrative”. He plans to tackle this by using “impactful and hard-hitting social media content, purposeful news media engagement, and immediately addressing false narratives at the source.”

After announcing his candidacy, there was a noteworthy interaction on twitter between Chhinzer and his ex-police partner Heather McWilliams—an officer who recently won a Human Rights Tribunal, which concluded sexual harassment was likely a prevalent problem across Toronto police forces.

Please tell us what are your plans to hold our colleagues & bosses at 23 Division and through out the service accountable for abuse of power, negligence, harm against all females with sexual violence, harassment, reprisal and intimidation? —Heather McWilliams

…I can’t change anything that happened 10 years ago, especially things I didn’t know about. The best way to influence & change behaviour is to model the behaviour you expect. You were around when I was treated very poorly by people as well. It wasn’t the entire Toronto Police Service that treated me poorly — it was individual people…if the members choose me to be President, this will be an area that I won’t stand for, tolerate, or ever model. —Ron Chhinzer

Saying to a victim “the best way to influence and change behaviour is to model the behaviour you expect” puts the onus on the victim to act honourably in hopes that it may rub off on others, instead of, you know, advocating for disciplining and removing police officers that don’t act honourably. This is a strange approach for someone claiming to prioritize officers’ mental health (Nanton and Reid also list mental health as a priority). It’s also odd that he dismissed her experience as an “individual” problem and not a greater Toronto police culture issue given that the Human Rights Tribunal concluded that it was the latter.

In an interview, when asked “What is the root cause of gang violence?” he responded with: “We have to first look at the family structure at home. Have we ever asked parents what help/supports they need?” suggesting he sees youth crime as a symptom of other problems. Early intervention for youth with behavioural problems has been found to reduce their later crime involvement (e.g. peer-reviewed recent study), so if Chhinzer ends up strongly supporting these kinds of initiatives, then his leadership may lead to long-term reductions in crime.

Currently, Chhinzer doesn’t have many other specifics on his plan yet, but he uses much less divisive language when discussing those who are “anti-police” in comparison to Reid, and especially Nanton.

You can read Chhinzer’s whole platform here.

Tom Ueberholz: Chief Steward

Ueberholz has posted little online about his campaign. On instagram he has one photo announcing his candidacy on Oct. 24th and nothing else. In this photo, he describes his platform (or maybe himself?) as “SMART-SOLID-ANGRY”. His twitter was created Sept. 2020 and has only two tweets and no followers. One of these tweets is him replying to another’s tweet (which didn’t mention him) “Why did I receive this?”. This suggests he thinks tweets on his homepage are sent personally to him, which would mean he doesn’t understand how twitter works. Based on what he’s put out thus far, it doesn’t appear he is very serious about winning the election.

Summary

Only three individuals are publicly campaigning for the position so far:

1. Nanton is taking an aggressive police-defending approach in reaction to criticism of police practices.
2. Reid says he is taking a “progressive” approach, but most of the specifics he discusses are about enforcing the status quo for policing practices.
3. Chhinzer plans to combat “anti-police narratives”, which focuses mainly on managing the police force’s image. He has not provided many specifics yet, but from what he’s said, he does not seem very interested in changing policing practices.

There is no candidate that is advocating to improve police relations with the public through supporting reforms recommended by watchdogs, advocacy groups, media, and the public. Some examples of reforms that have been recommended are:

• Increasing transparency and independent civilian oversight (right now most oversight is conducted by current and ex-cops).
• Firing officers who are found to have committed serious offences (e.g., sexual assault, covering up misconduct of other cops, lying in courts, charging people with offences in retaliation, concrete acts of racism) and requiring cops to cooperate with internal investigations.
• Reducing the range of situations they respond to (e.g., have mental health workers respond to mental health crises, whereas they only respond to actively violent encounters).
• Removing suspension with pay and requiring the police union to pay for victim officers legal fees.
• Ensuring the union is not involved in lobbying or any political activity.
• Improving police training in order to reduce avoidable serious injuries to civilians.

Enacting these changes would:

1. Save the police force huge sums of money.
2. Would make police forces more specialized and efficient.
3. The extra money could be diverted to creating independent specialized units and could be invested into crime preventative (i.e., community investments), instead of crime reaction.

These changes would greatly increase public trust in the police, thereby improving police-community relations. This would subsequently improve police morale, which is often cited as a major concern of police union leaders.

Instead of paying for a media team or political attack ads to try and improve the image of the police: why not improve their image through actually improving policing practices?

Unfortunately, given the available candidates, it is more than likely that the next TPA president will actively fight against progressive reforms, instead of for them.