How would you spend $1.7 million?

What? Sorry, you'll have to speak up.

That's how much the City spent on the salaries of those planning security for last year's G20 summit. By December, the Police Service had applied for—and expects to shortly receive in full—a late holiday present: reimbursement from Public Safety Canada.

Merry fund reallocation, everyone! I hope you wanted a sound cannon.

Oh, sorry—by "sound cannon," I mean "Long-Range Acoustic Devices" (LRAD). And by "a," I mean "four."

The devices, originally designed as a less-lethal option for the US Navy, can operate in “alert” mode—focused noise capable of causing extreme pain, nausea, and confusion—or public address mode, and can be mounted on the back of a truck or worn by an officer (also known as “Megaman Mode”).

The truck-mounted version can emit noise at 140 dB, enough to cause immediate, long-term hearing damage. The RCMP does not support LRAD use in urban settings, citing a lack of medical data on their long-term effects. The Boston police department, which employed the device during their G20 summit, has “since ceased using their LRAD... out of a concern for public safety,” according to the RCMP's internal review, cited in the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's deputation to the Police Services Board meeting on February 3.

But, on the other hand, they were pretty cheap.

Together they will cost the City—through an agreement to go dutch with PSC – $30,300. Police Chief Bill Blair emphasized the savings on the devices, and other equipment, in his report: $703,000 for video equipment, $389,000 on upgrades to the Major Incident Command Centre, $166,000 on booking security systems, $152,000 on workstations, $87,000 on vehicle equipment, $262,000 on "other equipment," $375,000 on clothing, and $136,500 on surveillance cameras.

You may have noted, if you did your own math on the numbers I just provided—and you should always do your own math on the numbers people just provide—that they total around $2.3 million. The additional $600,000 will be absorbed by already-planned acquisitions for capital projects.

"Interesting how the sums line up," mused lawyer Peter Rosenthal in his deputation to the Police Services Board on February 3, though he called the capital savings "reasonable."

He was less ambivalent about the LRADs. "That money is money you can do anything you want with," he said. "Suppose they sell you guillotines at 50 percent—would you buy them?"

Well, maybe for communicating with people. That, insists the Chief, is all the LRADs will be used for—people barricaded deep inside buildings, or lost on the “open water” of Lake Ontario.

So, the force is buying $7,500 megaphones. Or, the LRADs may eventually go through the "mission creep" already seen with TASERs in Toronto. (And consider that the one time during the G20 when communication from the police was arguably needed most, eyewitness accounts suggest the LRAD on site wasn't put to such use.)

The Chief said that when the Board approved a $122.154 million bump-up to the 2010 police budget, that gave him power to acquire new equipment. It's worth noting that much equipment has since been returned. But, hey: bargain bin noise gun.

“I am shocked,” said Board member (and Provincial appointee) Judi Cohen. “It was never my expectation that we were going to be told as a Board what is purchased.”

“It is not my understanding we need to seek approval for every item we purchase,” shot back Blair.

The real argument here wasn't over sound cannons. It was over the definition of the Board's jurisdiction—and, by extension, the extent of civilian oversight. Remember that the Board was involved itself (or attempted to be involved) in deliberations over purchasing new TASERs for Toronto police.

At a time when cuts are looming across City departments and crime is down, it seems out of step to drop some coin on new crowd-control equipment—those cameras mentioned earlier are 52 of the 71 which the Service said would be taken down after the summit; most of the clothing is for the "outfitting of 100 additional Public Safety officers,” or riot cops.* Out of step, that is, unless the force is girding itself for future discontent should austerity prove permanent.

It's all, says the Chief, at "no net cost" (ignoring that any new equipment shows up as a permanent new budget l­ine, due to repair and replacement). But it is at the cost of whatever else that money could have been used for. When other outfits funded by City money produce surpluses, they often put that surplus against future budget "asks." The TTC regularly does so; why not the police? At the least, the Board is empowered to say, “Alright, Chief, you can buy the new tech with salary money. And, since you apparently don't need the money for staff, we can approve a $1.7 million cut to your budget next year. Deal?”

Retroactive budgeting? Using staff money to buy equipment? Sounds like a job for the new Rob “respect for taxpayers” Ford appointees—but Councillor Michael Thompson (Ward 37, Scarborough Centre) mustered only a token show of concern. Asking the Chief to tell him if he was wrong, Thompson said, "We don't appear to have a choice...We are being notified there is action to be taken." The Chief agreed. Thompson shrugged it off as a lesson learned—clearly not thrilled, but not willing to raise a ruckus.

Councillor Frances Nunziata (Ward 11, York South–Weston), also still finding her footing, asked the Chief to circulate, at the next meeting, all past documents detailing agreements to purchase the LRADs.

Cohen leaned over the table to her new colleague. "As a sitting Board member," she said, "I've never seen them either."

Photo, of someone peering out at police during the weekend of the G20, by Liam Maloney/OpenFile.

* CORRECTION: February 6, 2011: This article mistakenly referred to Public Safety officers as "public officers."