BUILDING BRIDGES»
ACROSS THE DAMAGE

Vandal Watch looks for a cure in the cause

If the tone of a _ press
conference held last Friday to
officially announce the launch of
the Vandal Watch Program on
March 4, 1992 was one of
excitement and optimism, then
the prevelant theme running
throughout the meeting was one
of cooperation, commitment, and
good will between the diverse
groups involved.

The committee members and
business community are pleased
with the involvement of the
Responding Parents and Teens
group, which they say gives a
broader scope and more well-
rounded approach to the
committee.

According to Vandal Watch
co-chair Doug Smith, the commit-
tee is still investigating many
aspects of the program; for
example, a sub-committee has
been formed to refine the defini-
tion of vandalism. According to
committee member Terry Brown
of the Lax Ghels Community Law
Centre, the Criminal Code does
not define vandalism — it actual-
ly falls under the term “mischief”,
which covers a lot of ground in
the Criminal Code. Brown said
the sub-committee would be look-
ing at refining the definition of
mischief. The definition so far
reads “willfull or reckless conduct
which results in the destroying or
damaging of public property or
personal property without lawfull

justification or excuse and with-
out colour of right”.

("Without colour of right’
means, among other things, that
persons with interest in property
are not able to destroy that prop-
erty and then claim a reward, and
a person who commits an act of
vandalism is not able to collect a
reward.) The committee will con-
tinue to work on the definition
and it will be in place before
rewards are distributed.

At this point the Vandal
Watch program and reward sys-
tem deals only with strict acts of
vandalism. According to Smith,
the committee does not want to
water down the intent of the
program nor go too broad and
take on too much too soon. The
committee feels they may expand
in the future, possibly to a Crime
Stoppers type of organization,
depending on the success of the
program,

The reward fund currently
sits at $1,500, which is strictly
donations from local businesses.
They have a commitment of
$10,000 from the city, which the
committee will match through
donations. They have also
received an additional $1,000
from the city which will go
towards operating costs as well as
the reward fund. When businesses
are approached to donate to the
Vandal Watch program, they are
given the choice of contributing to

8 Terrace Review — March 6, 1992

the reward fund or helping out
with operating costs. Operating
costs at this time consist only of
paying for the phone line. Smith
said the committee hopes all other
operating costs can be achieved by
donation. An example given was
the Vandal Watch logo and phone
number, which the committee
hopes to plasticize and put in
prominent places such as store
windows and phone booths.

Smith said the fund is an
important part of the program,
but not everyone who calls in will
want a reward. Some people will
be doing it for civic duty. .

You don’t have to be inter-
ested in a reward to provide infor-
mation to Vandal Watch.

RCMP Inspector Larry Yeske
said he sees nothing wrong with
paying rewards, but he wishes
people would be more inclined to
exercise their civic duty by report-
ing vandalism and other crimes
without expecting a reward.
Yeske adds, however, that he
realizes it is a necessary cost of
doing business and it has worked
well in other communities.

Yeske said he hopes Vandal
Watch will turn out to be a van-
dal prevention program, with the
theory being that those who want
to vandalize will be more cautious
about doing so if the risks are
greater.

According to Yeske, statistics
show that Terrace averages two