When asked Grok said
In many ways the situation Peter Sloly faced during the Freedom Convoy protests can reasonably be described as a Catch-22—a no-win dilemma where any realistic path forward led to severe criticism, loss of support, or professional ruin.
Here's why it fits the classic Catch-22 pattern (damned if you do, damned if you don't):
- If he acted aggressively early (e.g., mass arrests, towing trucks, heavy enforcement to clear downtown quickly):
He risked accusations of overreach, excessive force, violating Charter rights (peaceful assembly, expression), inflaming the protest into violence, or creating martyrs. The convoy had broad public sympathy in some quarters (anti-mandate sentiment was strong), and heavy-handed tactics could have escalated things nationally or drawn international backlash. Plus, with limited resources and intelligence gaps (POEC noted underestimation of scale), a premature crackdown might have failed spectacularly. - If he took a measured, de-escalation approach (as he largely did—negotiations, warnings, incremental enforcement, "shut down the fun" plan targeting amenities like DJs/hot tubs):
He was slammed for inaction, leniency, allowing the occupation to drag on (3+ weeks of disruption, noise, economic harm to residents/businesses). Public frustration boiled over, trust eroded (he cited this as a key resignation factor), partner agencies (OPP/RCMP) hesitated on full support due to perceived weakness, and political pressure mounted (from council, mayor, feds). This path made him look incompetent or sympathetic, fueling calls for his head.
- Black community leaders and some experts framed his exit as scapegoating—blaming one person (especially as Ottawa's first Black chief) for systemic/multi-agency failures.
- The POEC report supported nuance: It noted some of his errors were "unduly enlarged" (suggesting scapegoating), spread blame widely, and didn't portray him as the sole incompetent. Sloly later called it an "unprecedented national security crisis" institutions weren't prepared for, and said he felt vindicated.
How could ai advisors have helped?
ReplyDeleteThe realities of municipal governance—Ottawa City Council (and similar bodies) often benefits enormously from structured, impartial advice during deliberations, especially on high-stakes, emotionally charged, or procedurally complex issues like those we've discussed (e.g., police oversight crises, major infrastructure decisions, or protest responses).Councillors are elected representatives, not always trained experts in governance, crisis management, legal nuances, or conflict resolution. Without good guidance, deliberations can devolve into the kind of politicized, secretive, or reactive "schmozzle" we've seen in past Ottawa examples (LRT mishandling, convoy leadership fallout). External or formalized advice helps prevent that by promoting transparency, evidence-based decisions, and adherence to rules.What Kind of Advice Would Help During Deliberations?Based on Ottawa's own frameworks (Procedure By-law No. 2025-100, Code of Conduct for Members of Council No. 2025-99, and related policies), as well as best practices from municipal governance reviews:Procedural and parliamentary guidance — To enforce rules of order, handle points of order, manage in-camera sessions (closed meetings for sensitive topics like litigation or solicitor-client advice), and ensure fair debate without personal attacks or disrespect. The mayor (or chair) has authority here, but an independent parliamentarian or clerk's office input prevents bias.
Legal and ethical counsel — Real-time reminders of conflicts of interest, confidentiality obligations (e.g., not disclosing in-camera substance), and compliance with the Municipal Act, 2001. The Integrity Commissioner plays a role in investigating breaches, but proactive advice during meetings avoids violations.
Independent or expert input on complex issues — For crises (protests, emergencies) or big projects (infrastructure), councillors could benefit from neutral third-party perspectives: e.g., former judges, governance experts, or facilitators on Catch-22 dilemmas, scapegoating risks, or multi-agency coordination failures.
Training and orientation reinforcement — New councils get orientation sessions (e.g., post-election in 2022 and ongoing for 2022-2026 term), including tours, briefings on roles, and procedural training. Mid-term reviews (like the 2025 governance update) often recommend better tools for deliberation, but ongoing workshops on de-escalation, evidence evaluation, or crisis decision-making would help.
Structured facilitation — For heated topics, using neutral moderators or pre-submitted motions (Ottawa's rules allow 48-hour advance notice for complex items) to focus debate and reduce ambush tactics.
How This Could Have Helped in Past CasesIn the convoy interim chief mess (Deans' rushed hire, Watson's backlash): Clearer procedural advice on board authority vs. council oversight, plus conflict resolution input, might have avoided unilateral moves and mass resignations.
On the LRT secrecy (Hourigan's findings): Expert advice on transparency obligations and risk disclosure could have pushed for full council briefing earlier, preventing "egregious violations of public trust."
Ottawa already has some mechanisms (City Clerk's office for procedural support, Integrity Commissioner for ethics), but they're reactive more than proactive during live deliberations. Strengthening real-time, impartial advice—perhaps through a dedicated governance advisor or expanded clerk role—would make council more effective and less prone to the pitfalls we've reviewed.Your background with PeerMetrics (metrics-driven evaluation) could tie in nicely here—perhaps suggesting data-informed deliberation tools or performance metrics for council processes? If that's the kind of advice you're thinking of offering, or if you'd like ideas on how to frame it for councillors (e.g., via public input at meetings or reports),
A summary of the public statements made by prominent figures in Ottawa's Black community shortly after Peter Sloly's resignation on February 15, 2022.
ReplyDeleteKey details from contemporary reporting (primarily Ottawa Citizen and CBC News articles from mid-February 2022):
Adeyefa Adeyefa (associated with Black Ottawa Connect) wrote in a public statement that it was "unfortunate [Sloly] has become the scapegoat for the failure of the entire system." He alleged Sloly was "unfairly targeted due to the colour of his skin" and that the convoy occupation "presented an opportunity for those working against him behind the scenes to scapegoat him." Adeyefa emphasized that the Black community did not accept this outcome.
Nneka MacGregor (a prominent advocate, often linked to women's and social justice issues in Ottawa's Black community) described a "sabotage attempt" against Sloly as "pretty obvious and public," citing examples like racist memes and a video comparing him to Hitler that circulated earlier in his tenure. She argued these undermined him from the start.
Other voices included:The African Canadian Association of Ottawa (ACAO) (representing a large membership base), which sent a letter to the Ottawa Police Services Board calling Sloly's resignation "appalling," referring to a "clandestine movement" to undermine his leadership, and urging the board to reject it and reinstate him. They viewed him as a scapegoat for broader systemic failures.
Leaders like Robin Browne (co-lead of the 613-819 Black Hub) and Hector Addison (from ACAO) highlighted resistance to Sloly from within the force since his 2019 appointment as a reform-minded outsider (Ottawa's first Black chief, hired partly to address systemic racism post-Abdirahman Abdi case). They noted differential treatment of protests (e.g., harsher responses to Black/Indigenous blockades vs. the convoy).
These statements framed Sloly's exit as part of longer-standing internal opposition to his efforts to reform the OPS (e.g., acknowledging systemic bias, shifting resources to mental health calls), with the convoy crisis providing a convenient pretext.
Councillors like Shawn Menard echoed similar concerns, saying blame shouldn't fall solely on Ottawa's first Black chief.The Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) final report (February 2023) lent some credence to this view by noting that "some errors on Chief Sloly’s part were unduly enlarged by others to a degree that suggests scapegoating" and that he was "rarely given the benefit of the doubt." Sloly himself later described feeling "almost completely vindicated," saying the attacks were often rumor-based and scapegoating.
This perspective contrasted sharply with the dominant public/political narrative at the time (focusing on inaction and leadership shortfalls), highlighting racial and institutional dynamics in the debate over accountability.
Council advice: ( on avoiding scapegoating in crises or ensuring diverse input), it underscores the value of hearing community voices early to prevent polarized blame games.