Friday July 30, 2010
Find local businesses. Fast!

No Stats
Local News

Ex-fire chief, Mayor clash over firing

Saurette says was dismissed over drinking at firehalls; Gardner says chief didn't raise the alarm

Squamish's firefighters battled the biggest residential blaze in years this weekend (see related story this page) – but a different conflagration within Squamish Fire Rescue has been sparked with the dismissal of Fire Chief Ray Saurette.

Saurette claims he was fired this week because of an "internal battle" between him and some of Squamish's volunteer firefighters over an attempt by Saurette to bring a halt to drinking at local firehalls.

But Mayor Greg Gardner calls the allegations "absolutely untrue" and says that Saurette never mentioned any concerns about alcohol until after he was fired.

In a scathing news release issued to media outlets across B.C. Wednesday (Dec. 16) Saurette says the controversy started last December when then-Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Kim Anema directed Saurette to enforce the district's policy prohibiting alcohol in district facilities to include the two firehalls – a policy Saurette says he supported.

"Just as we would not want to be operated on by a surgeon that has just come from the tavern, people in emergency want to ensure that the first responders helping them are not clouded by the effects of alcohol," Saurette wrote.

Saurette says that a small group of current and retired volunteer firefighters who did not want to lose the existing lounge at the firehalls "took exception" to the policy and convinced council to overturn the policy in January of this year. He says he was then directed by council to negotiate the lease of space in the firehalls to the Squamish Firefighters Association (SFFA) for the lounge.

"The explanation by the district? They believe the lounge is a good way of retaining volunteers," Saurette wrote.

However, Saur-ette says the conflict between him and some of the firefighters continued, with several volunteer firefighters sending disparaging emails regarding his performance to the new CAO, Kevin Ramsay.

"Ever since I've been painted as not supporting the volunteers," Saurette said in an interview Wednesday. "As a result my credibility over the last year has been brought into question."

The issue came to a head Nov. 23 when Ramsay told Saurette he was recommending his termination as fire chief. Saurette, who was about to go on holiday, demanded an opportunity to appeal directly to council, which finally happened this week in a closed-door session. Following a closed-door meeting of council, Ramsay advised Saurette Wednesday that council had adopted his recommendation to terminate his employment.

Saurette has been with Squamish Fire Rescue since 1996, when he was hired as deputy fire chief, and became fire chief in 2000.

Saurette said he has the "utmost respect" for both the professional and volunteer firefighters and full confidence in their training.

But he stands by his concerns about firefighters having access to alcohol at the firehall when they can be called into service at a moment's notice.

"When there is a fire in town or a vehicle crash on the highway there is no way to know if the person coming to your rescue has just put their beer down before they climbed on the fire truck," Saurette wrote. "Gum is routinely carried in the fire truck as a means of masking alcohol on the breath. That's not a very comforting feeling for anyone, especially in their time of need and it horrifies me that this carries on in this century."

Saurette said he had never observed a firefighter respond to a call while legally impaired.

"I will never say that anybody was impaired. Under the influence? Yes. You have one beer and you're under the influence. Whether or not that impairs their ability to perform at the highest level is the question."

While he as fire chief had the discretionary power to keep a firefighter from responding to a call, Saurette says he never used it.

In an interview with The Chief Thursday (Dec. 17) Gardner said Saurette's allegation of being fired over implementing a no-alcohol policy at firehalls was "absolutely untrue, and I'll say something stronger than that, and this is probably the most troubling part, is that Mr. Saurette knows that it's untrue."

Gardner confirmed that Saurette was placed on leave Nov. 23 and was dismissed this week.

"We had serious concerns about his leadership style not meshing with the direction that the District of Squamish is choosing to take," Gardner said.

"One of the directions the district has chosen to take is open, fair and accurate communication, both within our organization and externally and the statements that Mr. Saurette has made have made it even more clear that he is not able to live up to that standard."

Gardner confirmed that Saurette had an opportunity to appeal to council this week where Ramsay made a half-hour presentation laying out concerns regarding Saurette's performance.

"Not one of them touched on alcohol, the management of alcohol issues or anything of the sort, and the reason that that didn't occur is because we weren't aware of any," said Gardner. "I've been mayor for a year, I meet with Mr. Saurette more than once a week and never has he said that there's a concern about his fire force responding to calls under the influence of alcohol. For him to come out with these allegations the day after being terminated is shocking, frankly."

Saurette says that while he did not bring his concerns directly to the mayor or Ramsay, Anema and the district's human resources manager knew that there was drinking at the firehalls.

"The history was there that they knew consumption was occurring and these guys could get on the firetrucks. There was no need to move that forward, the impact was already noted," he said.

"Because this group lobbied council to overturn that directive, this council knew they would use the lease as a legal loophole, so they knew that alcohol consumption was still occurring in the firehalls.

"I believe members of council knew that that could lead to consuming [alcohol] and going out on calls. By virtue of allowing the lease to happen they knew the possibility existed for that."

Saurette also noted that he brought the alcohol policy issue up in his hearing before council this week in response to complaints from firefighters.

Gardner confirmed that firefighters brought concerns regarding Saurette's performance to council's attention.

"None of them revolved around alcohol," he said.

Gardner said he was not aware of a change in policy last year regarding alcohol on district property. "I was made aware that we had a policy of no alcohol on district
premises. I'm not disputing that, I just don't know it first hand," he said.

But Gardner said Saurette wasn't aware of a long-standing written agreement between the DOS and the SFFA to allow a lounge in the firehalls and that the DOS no-alcohol policy would not apply to them which was brought to council's attention by SFFA members after Saurette attempted to close the lounges.

"The arrangement was there for many years, it was confirmed in a formal lease this year, but it was recognized in writing; I saw a document," said Gardner.

Saurette's termination was not for cause, meaning that he would be paid severance. Gardner said that severance had not yet been negotiated with Saurette, but added: "Frankly I think our legal counsel will review our position on this being a not-for-cause termination. We have a fire chief who says there was a very serious problem in a fire department that he managed for nine years.

"If that turns out to be true and he did not manage it and did not bring it to his superiors' attention that's a pretty serious failing."

Gardner said the district is taking Saurette's allegations seriously and the CAO arranged a meeting with the SFFA Thursday night (Dec. 17) to go over them.

"He's made serious allegations and we will take them seriously, despite the source."

Despite the controversy, Gardner said he did not think a specific policy on the use of alcohol by firefighters was necessary.

"I would think that any firefighter in the world would tell you it's not appropriate to respond to a call under the influence of alcohol. We will look into that but that is just common sense and any fire chief would be aware of that."


Comments

PlatosGimp says...

The Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General, Office of The Fire Commissioner and WorkSafeBC have all been contacted with regards to the issue of alcohol being permitted/consumed in Squamish Fire Halls's. WSBC has already (apparently) met with the Squamish Mayor's office & will be following up (monitoring) Squamish's response to this issue. WSBC was outraged at learning of this issue & our mayor's response/comments.

Posted on January 12, 2010 @ 7:18 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3091643 

PlatosGimp says...

jaa says: "600 comments out of 20+ million people really doesn't indicate a public confidence majority"

I believe that Jaa may not understand the process of research/polling/sampling. There are relatively few studies which have particular research designs, or target populations, which allow for statistics to be gathered on the entire population. Where "population" just means all subjects/things of interest to the study, and not necessarily human populations.

Most polls or research is based on a representative SAMPLE of some POPULATION. In this case our population is indeed (at least), all 23 million+ Canadians. A truly statistically representative sample would likely involve various stratified sampling methods whereby the proportional representation of things like age, gender, socioeconomic status, education and race might be equally represented in our sample. This would be a reasonable assumption on the type of sampling that might be used since other studies have shown age, education, race and socioeconomic status can effect moral reasoning.

So the question comes down to whether or not the "sample" of 600+ individuals (likely less due to multiple posts) is representative of the overall population of 23 million+ Canadians. We already know that our sample would be a restricted-range sample in that we know that the demographics of Internet users, is slightly different from the demographics of the entire population. Internet users are generally younger (on average), more educated and in a higher socioeconomic status than non-internet users. However, we also know that approximately 70% of Canadians have Internet access. We also have the restricted range of those Canadian Internet users who read those particular on-line periodicals, and then only those who have read the article and then only those who read the article and decided to post a comment.

In summary, yes the statistics based on the admittedly restricted-range and biased sample of 600+ comments may not be fully representative of the entire population of Canadians. However, what still lends support to this sample being "mostly" or “likely” representative are:

1: The vast majority of scientific/PTSD research, public-opinion, legal precedents and even association policies, CONDEMN alcohol consumption by fire-fighters prior to a call; alcohol consumption effects judgment; proximity of alcohol increases risk of consumption and the use of alcohol to combat stress is indicative of deeper psychological and/or substance abuse issues.

2: The fact that across ALL the papers sampled, the overwhelming proportion of comments OPPOSING alcohol in fire halls is pretty much the same. This lends a GREAT deal of reliability and validity to the overall sample being somewhat representative of the entire sub-population of "Internet Users Reading the Articles".

With regards to some of the missing samples (which might effect our estimated population statistics), such as those individuals of lower socioeconomic status, lower education, older/senior individuals etc who may not have computers etc, I will speculate that these groups may likely balance out, or not skew the results significantly, either way. The first missing sample (lower socioeconomic/education status) will/may likely show more support for drinking in the fire halls as evidenced by studies on moral reasoning and socioeconomic/education status. The second group (elderly) will likely balance out the first group with the likely higher proportion of elderly that, if asked, would NOT support alcohol in fire halls. Also based on studies of moral reasoning and age.

Therefore, considering all potential sources of bias such as restricted range samples, demographics of Internet users, Internet users vs non-Internet users and the possibility that some of the missing samples may balance out their results, it is my opinion as an ex-statistician, that the larger proportion of comments which have condemned drinking in fire halls and the negative comments directed towards our municipal leaders in support of such drinking, is (likely) representative of the entire Canadian (if not North American) population.

Posted on December 30, 2009 @ 3:25 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3055579 

jaa says...

600 comments out of 20+ million people really doesn't indicate a public confidence majority, but rather leans greatly towards "the over rated concern of a couple of handfuls (or a very minute percentage)of individuals that are on the band wagon."

I wholeheartedly agree that FFs should not be attending calls while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, etc!!! I can assure you that any firefighter (volunteer or full time) does not want his back covered by someone under the influence!!!

There always have been ,still are, and likely always will be alcohol or drug dependent people in every field of employment, and management have to weed out the problems!!

All the Best in 2010!!!

Posted on December 29, 2009 @ 7:53 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3049535 

jaa says...

600 comments out of 20+ million people really doesn't indicate a public confidence majority, but rather leans greatly towards "the over rated concern of a couple of handfuls (or a very minute percentage)of individuals that are on the band wagon."

I wholeheartedly agree that FFs should not be attending calls while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, etc!!! I can assure you that any firefighter (volunteer or full time) does not want his back covered by someone under the influence!!!

There always have been ,still are, and likely always will be alcohol or drug dependent people in every field of employment, and management have to weed out the problems!!

All the Best in 2010!!!

Posted on December 28, 2009 @ 11:33 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3047221 

jaa says...

600 comments out of 20+ million people really doesn't indicate a public confidence majority, but rather leans greatly towards "the over rated concern of a couple of handfuls (or a very minute percentage)of individuals that are on the band wagon."

I wholeheartedly agree that FFs should not be attending calls while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, etc!!! I can assure you that any firefighter (volunteer or full time) does not want his back covered by someone under the influence!!!

There always have been ,still are, and likely always will be alcohol or drug dependent people in every field of employment, and management have to weed out the problems!!

All the Best in 2010!!!

Posted on December 28, 2009 @ 11:32 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3047220 

PlatosGimp says...

A new Facebook Page (Ban Fire Hall Drinking) has been created with links to many articles in the press on this topic. This might be a good place to carry on this debate in the light of Squamish's Mayor stating that "there are no plans to investigate Saurette's allegations of alcohol consumption at fire halls prior to calls".

If you have an opinion on whether or not alcohol should be consumed at Fire Halls, and supported by the municipality, this might be the place to carry on this debate.

On Facebook search for "Ban Fire Hall Drinking"

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ban-Fire-Hall-Drinking/222846264067?v=wall

Posted on December 25, 2009 @ 3:20 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3041261 

PlatosGimp says...

jaa says:

"Get over it people, fire-fighters don't sit around the hall ( drinking in the lounge) waiting of a call! Give them some credit!"

Only a very small few are trying to imply this, across around 600 comments at 6-8 papers. This is NOT the concern people have. The primary concerns, based on the review of those comments/opinions, are;

1: The close proximity of alcohol in the firehall WILL/DOES increase the likelihood of alcohol being consumed prior to a call and so the SAFER route, is to not allow such access on municipal property.

2: Pretty much unanimously, with "jaa" being about the ONLY exception, the APPEARANCE of alcohol readily available at the firehall is VERY, VERY bad, and does not reflect the attitudes/expectations of the general public (outside of Squamish). Nor does it reflect the practices of larger firehalls, or, from what I can gather, the VFFA.

jaa says:

"I don't believe there is a public confidence issue here, only the over rated concern of a couple of handfuls of individuals that are on the band wagon."

3: Our mayors public support of "firehall boozing" (terms used in the articles), is pretty much unanimously deplored/condemned.

I would suggest that jaa, and others who wish to get a clear, honest and representative view on this issue, to search Google, Bing or Yahoo for "Squamish Fire Chief" and you will find around 600 comments across 6-8 papers. If you take the time to do a bit of research, you will/should be able to develop a more accurate and representative perspective.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Years :)

Posted on December 25, 2009 @ 10:45 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3041258 

jaa says...

Maybe you should consider organizing a Fire Department that you can house in high security area where you can control their every move, and force feed them what you deem appropriate.

Get over it people, fire-fighters don't sit around the hall ( drinking in the lounge) waiting of a call! Give them some credit!

I don't believe there is a public confidence issue here, only the over rated concern of a couple of handfuls of individuals that are on the band wagon.

Posted on December 25, 2009 @ 10:06 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3041257 

PlatosGimp says...

On sites elsewhere, like Global, CTV, The Province etc, some commenter s seem to believe that drinking at the fire-hall and drinking at home, when on call, are the same thing. Comments such as the following have been made. "They have a few beers after training, its the same as if they go home and have a few beers"

This is where the vast majority of comments in favour of drinking at the fire-halls, have missed the point/issue entirely. Drinking at home, and drinking in a fire-hall are NOT the same thing in any way shape or form.

Having physical access to alcohol on municipal property, leased/owned/rented, whatever, not only INCREASES the likelihood of alcohol being consumed prior to a call, but also DECREASES public confidence in the dept. Yes, most people are responsible enough to self-regulate/self-police whether they are capable of responding to a call. And although there have only been a few public reports of alcohol-related issues in fire-halls, this does not mean that we should not make every effort possible to MINIMIZE risk and MAXIMIZE public confidence.

Many have also tried to propose various reasons why this is NOT an issue. FF's are responsible people, FF's need a place to "decompress", FF's need to "bond", FF's have stressful jobs, FF's are NOT drunks etc. None of these are relevant since most of those reasons can apply to ANY job. However, FF's are first-responders, they deal with VERY highly demanding tasks and situations which require EXCEPTIONAL judgement, alertness and physical capabilities. We should all work towards MINIMIZING risk and so we do this be banning ALL DRINKING at fire-halls, which also has the added affect of INCREASING public confidence. Thsi is what the public expects, overwhelmingly. And it is common-sense.

When looking at this issue it is important to ask yourself, which is MORE important:

1: Giving the VFF a place to bond and "decompress" on municipal property WITH alcohol (INCREASING risk and DECREASING public confidence).

2: Giving the VFF a place to bond and "decompress" on municipal property WITHOUT alcohol (DECREASING risk and INCREASING public confidence).

Posted on December 23, 2009 @ 1:45 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3035716 

TravisJohnstone says...

The lounges are sepperate locked rooms the fridge is also locked.
- So then the lounges are in the firehall? just in a seperate room?

I respect what you guys do for the community, as my parents live in willow village and their place was very close to damaged the other night. I am still troubled however that you see a policy that is so obviously in line with present day common sense as "being cramed down your throats". Respect or not, how could you not see the advantage to my safety by following this policy?

To answer your question, yes I have had a glass of wine and been fine 5 hours later. I have also had a single bottle of beer that has effected me before I could finish it. It's called the 'buzz'.

Again, Has anyone ever been in the lounge when there has been a call, put down a beer, then gone to the firehall?

So my tax dollars do pay for your time, and you choose to give them to charities, gym equipment and parties and stuff. Does the fire department require that all the firefighters leave work to attend fires? Thereby you all take lost wages?


We had a lounge lease agreement that dated back to bill bloxham era.
- Why did the media have a copy of your lease that was only dated this year? Why do you even need a lease if your lounge is inside the firehall?

Posted on December 21, 2009 @ 6:39 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3029515 

Been There! says...

TravisJohnstone says...

If you don't consume alcohol in the firehall, where is your lounges?
The lounges are sepperate locked rooms the fridge is also locked. the pool table however is unlocked
So he did try to implement the alcohol policy then? Why did you guys not follow through with the policy, drafted or not?
He had lost all respect years prior to this action. So this was one more action cramed down our throats with no dialogue. We are all adults here, we pay to service this community, give us the same respect we give all of you.
I guess I will ask it another way. Has anyone ever been in the lounge when there has been a call, put down a beer, then gone to the firehall? I'm not talking 5 hours, I'm talking in the process?
Sorry did you answer my question, I did not see your reply.
What do you mean you pay to be a volunteer? I thought I heard the city actually pay's you for your hours that you are at calls? That would effectively make you an employee, no?
The pay goes to the halls and association where a vast majority goes to charity or charitable causes, Gym equipment, events ,etc. We do not recieve direct pay and my employer does not pay me to respond. So yes we do pay.
Did the city actually only finalize your lease agreement for your lounge after the chief tried to implement the alcohol policy
We had a lounge lease agreement that dated back to bill bloxham era.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TRAVIS JOHNSTONE WOULD BE ANSWERED IF YOU SIMPLY JOINED SFR AND VOLUNTEERED YOUR TIME. GO TO SQUAMISH ONLINE.
HERES THE LAST GROUP OF RECRUITS

On June 8, fourteen dedicated community members will join the volunteer ranks with Squamish Fire Rescue. The graduation ceremony will mark the end of close to 200 hours of firefighter recruit training, and mark the beginning of ongoing weekly training sessions and countless emergency call outs. Fire Chief Ray Saurette said, “Squamish is the beneficiary of the tireless work and commitment of highly trained and professional volunteers who dedicate countless hours to the safety and well being of this community.” The recruit process started last November with a three-phase application process. Chief Saurette explained that it was in February where the rubber hit the road for the 14 individuals selected to join the recruit class. They were required to put in as many as 180 hours of classroom and practical work to hone their firefighting skills before joining the current 46-member volunteer contingent.
“With the help of our volunteer and career staff, the Department is confident the new recruits are ready for action, and will strengthen the Department's response capabilities as Squamish Fire Rescue faces the challenges of a growing community," said Chief Saurette. “I would like to welcome our new volunteer firefighters as they start the next phase of their journey in becoming an integral part of a professional team of fire prevention and emergency response professionals." Squamish Fire Rescue is a composite Department consisting of 60 volunteers and five career firefighters who work side by side in providing the highest possible standard of fire rescue service

COULD NOT OF SAID IT BETTER CHIEF
BEEN THERE !

Posted on December 20, 2009 @ 11:53 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3029510 

TravisJohnstone says...

If you don't consume alcohol in the firehall, where is your lounges?

So he did try to implement the alcohol policy then? Why did you guys not follow through with the policy, drafted or not?

I guess I will ask it another way. Has anyone ever been in the lounge when there has been a call, put down a beer, then gone to the firehall? I'm not talking 5 hours, I'm talking in the process?

What do you mean you pay to be a volunteer? I thought I heard the city actually pay's you for your hours that you are at calls? That would effectively make you an employee, no?

Did the city actually only finalize your lease agreement for your lounge after the chief tried to implement the alcohol policy?

Posted on December 20, 2009 @ 11:12 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3029508 

TravisJohnstone says...

Been There, Greedy, and JD can you tell me:

why you have to drink alcohol in the firehall?

did the fire chief actually raise a no alcohol policy a year ago?

has anyone ever put down a beer and got on a truck when you guys have got an emergency?

Posted on December 20, 2009 @ 9:09 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3029504 

Disheartened says...

From Sara D.

A North Saanich fire fighter not long ago reported that drinking and driving was taking place by some of its fire fighting members at the local volunteer fire hall. Instead of taking disciplinary action, Council brushed the complaint under the carpet before it could be made too public and approved a permanent liquor license for the volunteer fire hall social lounge - on the pretence that it would help to recruit more volunteer fire fighters. This is a backward attitude and judging from the amount of advertising they have done since then in an attempt to recruit more volunteers, using that excuse that as a pretence has failed miserably. The fire fighter who reported the incidents (first to the Fire Chief who reportedly did nothing about the complaint) was publically ostracized by his fellow fire fighters as the Fire Chief watched it happen. By allowing drinking at a volunteer fire hall the Fire Chief and the Council have set up the community for some pretty heavy lawsuits and the real possibility for bad judgment during a life and death situation by these emergency responder. In reality we feel the best action would have been to terminate the Fire Chief and bring in a fresh perspective into that position to promote a healthy volunteer system without booze.

Kudos to the Squamish Fire Chief for coming forward with this information – perhaps he would like to apply for a job in North Saanich? We could sure use someone like him.

Posted on December 20, 2009 @ 5:28 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3026541 

Disheartened says...

What kind of people are you? Ray has dedicated everything to Squamish Fire Rescue and this community, and would have done anything for any one of its firefighters. He took a stand against the bullies and fought for open communication and better department standards. He also fought on behalf of members who have been mistreated by the old guys. Now the bullies have beat him down, dragged him through the mud and basically destroyed him. Now, you kick him in the teeth in the name of maintaining your social status with the guys. If you had a fraction of the integrity that Ray Saurette has, you would stand up for what you believe in.

Posted on December 20, 2009 @ 1:15 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3026533 

jaa says...

My frustration with a lot of this, is that a number of you think that the volunteers are sitting in the lounge area 24-7 waiting for a page and are babbling drunks.

I can assure you, These guys and gals are not, they have jobs to fulfill and families to support. A number of them have employers that allow them to leave their real job to assist the General Public in whatever way necessary.

The lounge can be a nice place for a short relax after a call.

Chief Saurette's dismissal is an unfortunate event that we will not hear both sides of the story. We can only hope that the DOS has sufficient to substantiate the dismissal.

Let's not drag everyone thru the dirt. Remember it is easier to criticize than it is to take action. If you can't see any good in this, then do something positive; get involved - Join the Fire Department or run for DOS Council!!!!

Posted on December 20, 2009 @ 10:27 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3026519 

Bryan Stewart says...

I'm a former Squamish resident, now live here in Vancouver. I work as a carpenter in the trades, where drinking (and unfortunately drug use) is prevalent and apparent in many aspects.
When is our society going to say enough is enough?! I have no problem with firefighters (volunteer or paid), getting together for a few cold ones after work, or after a volunteer fire practice. But alcohol has no place in the workplace, period. If a member has been drinking, he/she should not be responding to any emergency calls. Seems to me Worksafe BC would have some comment on this issue.

Posted on December 20, 2009 @ 2:38 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3026509 

VlyClfResQ says...

Posted by Wade Rota on another site:

Wade Rota
December 19, 2009 - 10:43 AM

Chief Suarette. I highly respect you for your attempt to right one of the wrongs stemming from the old traditions and deep rooted cultural beliefs of the fire service. If the allegations are correct, once the citizens of Squamish are forced to pay out a compensation for dismissal without cause they should also be prepared for an additional payment for your wrongful defamation.

Squamish Council? Based on the issue (alcohol) being accurate, you will have shown the entire nation your lack of aptitude and disregard for the seriousness of the subject matter. Once the legal proceedings begin you will quickly realize your major oversight. All to the detriment of your taxpayers.

To the Fire fighters; Chief Saurette is nothing to those of you that are still living on the old traditions and cultural beliefs. To your Chief no matter who that person is, even though you don't believe it you are his/her pride and responsibility. Regardless of your stone throwing, Chief Saurette respects you and forgives your ignorance. This also applies heavily to the silent majority of those in the organization who know right from wrong yet have failed to support your beliefs perhaps cowering under the pressures of a few old boys and their wet behind the ears disciples. You will wear your shame until the day you stand up to this council for what is right and free yourselves of that burden. Regardless of your faults you are all highly regarded for your dedication towards your community. Do not detract from that respect thinking you can hold your citizens for ransom by threats of withdrawing service if you can't secure the politicians sympathetic ear. And do not think that driving a vehicle with an FD license plate is a free pass to drink and drive. Most are aware of this but the old boys don't get it and that mentality is disrespectful to our police services and the more forward thinking firefighters. Try selling your philosophy to MADD.

Citizens of Squamish; Hold your Mayor and Council accountable. You elected them and they are your representation. In this matter, this should and will cause you all some serious embarrassment. Stand up and educate yourselves on this subject. Most have no idea of what lies beneath. To deal with this issue I can assure you Chief Suarette had an extremely delicate balancing act to follow. If you are brave enough (more importantly wise enough) demand a public open house with your council, your citizens, your dismissed chief and the media if you have any interest in the real truth.

Lastly, to the Media; I can only hope that there is an interest in staying on top of this story. Perhaps only then will it place closure to a cultural belief that continues to plague the fire service and citizens who are meant to always be professionally served.

Posted on December 19, 2009 @ 4:19 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3024291 

momoftwo says...

To: ardyjay
thanks for sharing your experience. That's a perfect example of how things should have played out in Squamish. Unfortunately for Chief Saurette, he didn't have smart bosses.

Posted on December 19, 2009 @ 2:06 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3024287 

PlatosGimp says...

Way to go ardyjay! As one with real, first-hand knowledge and experience with this issue (16/26 years), I commend you for your sound, rational and community-focused comments. Including the strong and slightly inflammatory comments directed towards our municipal leaders. Your comments and observations, should, hopefully, set the tone for exactly how our municipal leaders might respond to this issue. I suppose we will find out very soon how they do.

Across the country, in a dozen or so articles and 500+ comments, the overwhelming consensus is in support of opinions similar to yours. Including your statements towards our council and mayor such as "...my 'bosses' were smart enough to avoid the trap your council has been snared in" and "...your current [mayor] doesn't fully grasp the responsibilities inherent in his position".

The number of reader comments condemning our mayor and council is second only to the number of comments condemning drinking in fire-halls.

Posted on December 19, 2009 @ 12:58 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3024283 

ardyjay says...

I'm the Fire Chief for a smaller B.C. community. I've been with the department for 26 years, 16 as Chief.

Over the years, I've seen and heard of numerous examples of the problems with alcohol in fire departments. Their is no doubt it causes or exacerbates problems.

When I became Fire Chief, I severely restricted access to the bar in our halls. 6 or 7 members quit that day. We never did miss those individuals, because (a) having the access to alcohol was, IMO, their primary reason for joining our department and (b) there were many situations when they did leave a (third or forth) beer on the table and respond to a call.

Those individuals launched a similar vendetta against me, but in my case, my 'bosses' were smart enough to avoid the trap your council has been snared in.

In small communities, those undercurrents take a long time to dissipate.

I understand the camaraderie generated by socializing, and agree that it is a necessary and beneficial part of the equation. FF's see and do things in the line of duty that require such bonds, in order to be able to go forward, relatively unscathed, in life.

But alcohol, mixed with adrenalin, on top of the already heady dose of testosterone that soaks many FF's, will always a recipe for problems. Allowing those under the influence to make life affecting decisions will-and has- lead to tragedy. Sooner or later.

It's no secret that therein lies the basis for Chief Saurette's risk management decisions.

While I don't know Ray personally, I believe his actions were in the best interest of your community. If he is not returned to his position as Fire Chief, I'd think he would make a good candidate for your Mayor next election, as from all appearances, your current one doesn't fully grasp the responsibilities inherent in his position.

Good Luck and Best Wishes to Ray, and to the all members of the Squamish Fire Dept.

Posted on December 19, 2009 @ 12:27 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3024281 

momoftwo says...

Well, here you go! This is taken from the comments in The Province.....Think the drinking isn't happening! Well, here an ADMISSION.
Not sure if this person is addressing the Squamish VFF department or suggesting that he is a member of the Squamish VFF

"Squamish VFF
Whether you are driving your own vehicle or a fire pumper, DUI is not a big deal. I'm a VFF with 2 DUI convictions and I can still function as long as I have a couple of beers first. After about 6 beers, I'm the most fearless guy at the fire!"

Posted on December 19, 2009 @ 11:37 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3024278 

PlatosGimp says...

I have now spent hours, across three days, reading 500+ comments across around a dozen papers and on-line periodicals and believe I have a pretty good sense of what people are saying. First and foremost, there is overwhelming opposition to drinking by fire-fighters, volunteer or not, at the fire-hall or on municipal property. Second, some people have come out with various reasons why a fire-hall drinking lounge should remain and is not a problem. I wont try to comment on all the reasons put forth (many are invalid or irrational), but I will try to comment on one of the most popular. Basically that fire-fighters are responsible, competent and honourable individuals who have policed this in the past, and there have been little, or no incidents directly related to drinking by fire-fighters, that we know of.



Before I begin, I need to make an assumption, determine a suitable premise. That premise, or assumption is that our goal is to REDUCE the probability of a FF attending a call while intoxicated. Thereby REDUCING the risk of harm to the public, or FF's themselves



Lets now take a look at the claim that FF's can police themselves and use their own good judgement to decide if they are of sound mind and sound body in order to respond to a call. Regardless of whether or not FF's possess special, increased qualities of integrity, honour or honesty, we only need to look at the success-rate of self-policing of drinking and driving by the general public, to get an idea of whether or not this is a 100% successful method to reduce risk/harm. It is NOT and although it may indeed be a valid argument that FF's are sufficiently responsible enough to police themselves in most cases, ALCOHOL IMPAIRS JUDGEMENT and so this is NOT a fool-proof method to reduce risk. So if we accept the premise that our goal is to REDUCE risk, and we accept the conclusion that self-policing of determining one's ability to perform mentally and physically after drinking is NOT a 100% effective method to reduce risk, then you CANNOT support self-policing as a method which MINIMIZES risk. One down.



Now we need to remove the “self-policing” factor out of the equation we are building as a function which will ensure MINIMAL risk to the public. Lets say there was some sort of nearly-perfect, nearly-irrefutable and near 100% successful method, like a breathalyser or ignition system that requires a successful breathalyser to switch on. We can now look at the other potential factors which may either REDUCE or INCREASE the actual, or potential risk to the public. The question comes down to whether or not the risk of a FF trying to get into a firetruck and answer a call is HIGHER, or LOWER with an on-site drinking lounge. Certainly a FF can be drinking at home all day, and then get a call to attend a fire. This is where we need to rely on the FF's own judgement and of course the fall-back method, the breathalyser, to reduce risk. However, I believe that most would agree that having ready access to drinking, especially as a group, inside the fire-hall INCREASES the risk of a FF having had a drink and trying to attend a call. So once again, we should be able to agree that the way to REDUCE the actual, or potential risk of a FF trying to attend a call after having a drink, is to DISALLOW drinking in the fire-hall. Two down.



Now, lets say that for whatever reason neither self-policing, nor access to booze in the fire-hall increases any risk at all. Maybe we have access to some sort of “alcohol removable pill” or Pixie Dust which purges the body of ALL signs and effects of alcohol. This is a hypothetical situation in order to make the next point. The question we need to ask is this. “Does drinking by FF's in the fire-hall INCREASE or DECREASE public confidence?”. I am also confident that even if there were some magical way to eliminate 100% the effects of alcohol, public confidence is DECREASED by the perception that drinking occurs at fire-halls.



So from my perspective, based on the goal, or premise that we intend to actually, and potentially DECREASE the risk to the public, combined with the goal of MAXIMIZING public confidence in the fire department, BANNING all drinking in fire-halls is a valid argument if REDUCING risk and INCREASING confidence are the goals.

In most municipalities, they might only have to contend with the previous issues, or factors. Unfortunately we in Squamish now also have to deal with the VERY scathing and national condemnation of our mayor's public support of drinking in the fire-halls, visible contempt for Ray Saurette and efforts to redirect the issue and responsibility from the principle issue: reducing risk and maximizing public safety. We now have an issue of diminished local confidence, and significantly reduced national confidence/trust, in our municipal “leaders”.

Posted on December 19, 2009 @ 11:07 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3024275 

momoftwo says...

To: PlatosGimp
Your last post, acknowledging your error of judgement in regards to your assumption of the 'missing posts' is a perfect example of how an adult with morals should deal with such a situation. Mr Gardner, take notes!

Posted on December 19, 2009 @ 10:44 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3024273 

PlatosGimp says...

Thanks Tim, and my apologies for implying censorship when I had little or no evidence, other than the disappearance of a couple of posts. After reading 500+ scathing and critical comments, from around 10-12 periodicals, across the continent, I suppose I became a little trigger-happy and responded/commented without thinking. Thanks for clearing this up.

Posted on December 19, 2009 @ 9:40 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3024264 

publisher says...

To answer your question PlatosGimp, we removed a comment (which was posted twice) because it was abusive and inappropriate and did not contribute to the debate. To quote from our Terms of Use, which all users must indicate they have read and agree to before signing up to comment on our site:

"We want to encourage an open exchange of information and ideas. But if you use inappropriate language (even when typographically obfuscated), or make potentially slanderous or libelous comments when using this site and its features, or engage in ad hominem attacks on fellow commenter’s, people mentioned in stories, contributors or any employee of the Squamish Chief or Glacier Media Group, we reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to remove any and/or all of your contributions.
"We believe it is absolutely possible for people from a variety of points of view to discuss issues in a civil manner; and we reserve the right, but assume no obligation, to remove comments and ban accounts of users that foster incivility."

Sincerely,
Tim Shoults, Publisher

Posted on December 18, 2009 @ 4:33 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3021691 

PlatosGimp says...

Very interesting, earlier today there were 15 comments, now there are 13. Do we now add local media censorship to the list of honourable and ethical responses to this unfortunate local embarrassment.

Posted on December 18, 2009 @ 4:03 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3021689 

M says...

For those of us that have lived in this town for over 30 years some may remember the fact that Squamish has an unfortunate claim to fame in that the old Fire Station burned to the ground about 25? years ago. While the investigation found nothing suspicious it was generally accepted that the fire started in "The Smoking Lounge" early one morning.

Nothing has really changedi the intervening years with drinking at the fire hall.

Posted on December 18, 2009 @ 12:55 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3021685 

PlatosGimp says...

If we take the many comments, opinions and public statements at face value (across all papers/sites), we now present the appearance of a community which 1: supports drinking on location at fire-halls since the fireman need a place to "decompress", 2: are willing to disparage and blame the person who raised a concern over this, 3: are capable of lying on television and in print in order to try and protect our "reputation". As a community we have now lost all credibility on this matter in the public eye. I also suspect that this issue may spell the end of our current mayor's tenure, if not now most certainly at the next election. This was not a difficult issue to deal with truthfully, responsibly and ethically. How did we fail so blatantly, so publicly, so embarrassingly?

Posted on December 18, 2009 @ 12:51 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3021684 

RJ says...

Response to Editorial:
Just to be clear, On Dec. 1, 2008 at the direction of then CAO Kim Anema, I told Squamish firefighters that a policy was to be implemented prohibiting the consumption of alcohol at the fire halls. This was supported by a letter dated Dec. 4 to the membership from the CAO. A small group of volunteers took exception to the policy and lobbied Council.



On Jan. 14, 2009, the CAO wrote another letter to the membership stating that the District was pursuing a lease arrangement that would enable firefighters to continue to consume a the halls, and I can only presume that Kim’s reversal was made at the direction of Council. I was directed to make the lease happen.



There was no lease in existence prior to this, as stated by the Mayor.



District staff is not permitted to contest a Council directive and to do so would be considered cause for termination. This was further stated to me in a letter from Mayor Gardner: “Once a council motion has been made it is key that the District represents a united front, which specifically means as Fire Chief you publicly support council decisions.”



Regarding Mayor Gardner’s suggestion that I have met with him “at least weekly”, for the record, I have had less than a handful of meetings with the Mayor in the past year. Regarding my hearing with Council, the subject of alcohol was discussed at length in my submission to Council on Dec. 15. Further, the issue has been discussed with the SFR membership throughout the past year.

Posted on December 18, 2009 @ 12:32 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3021683 

cartmanmacduff says...

Squamish had a reputation for being a town full of drunken louts to outsiders and this is something the locals have been trying to change and bring community pride back to the streets of Squamish but thanks to the Mayor the people of Squamish have been shamed on National television.

Community leaders like Ray Saurette( take note Greg Gardner, I stress the word leader here)deserve our support and Gardner enjoy your very short lived time in the Mayors chair I will be voting your sorry butt out of office come election time. Also my next car will be a Ford.

Posted on December 18, 2009 @ 12:07 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3021682 

momoftwo says...

Wow! Good for VlyClfResQ and Furby for stepping up and speaking from what they saw and experienced! The people of Squamish need to speak up on this issue. Your Mayor is making Squamish look like a joke. Just go and read the comments that are being posted on CBC.ca. The people of Squamish need to step forward and speak up on the issue whether they support the Mayor or not. Mr Gardner accuses Chief Saurette of not speaking the truth, if Mr Gardner had the fortitude to stand behind his belief of "open, fair and accurate communication" Chief Saurette would still be running the department as efficiently as he was before this situation started a year ago. Mr Gardner could be standing in a spot-light taking all the glory of department well run and Chief Saurette could be getting on with what's really important to himself and that is, the SAFETY and well-being of the people in the community and those who travel through it .

Posted on December 18, 2009 @ 10:52 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3021665 

james k says...

"We had serious concerns about his leadership style not meshing with the direction that the District of Squamish is choosing to take," Gardner said.
this applies to council and our so called mayor,
more than Ray...
what do we expect he is a used car sales man ...cant believe anything he says ...............get out of office....

Posted on December 18, 2009 @ 9:03 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3021659 

VlyClfResQ says...

As a recent firefighter in Squamish, I can tell you that what Ray has said is true.

In more than a decade with the department myself, Ray has never been the focus of dissatisfaction with the guys untill he tried to bring the alcohol policy into effect a year ago. Since then the senior guys have ganged up on him and found everything they could to complain to council about. At one point they were complaining to council that a guy at the other hall didn't get new boots 2 months before he left.

I was talking to a buddy still in the department and how could the mayor say he knew nothing about it being a problem? Apparently there was two councillors at the annual appreciation dinner, when a fire call came in and over half the guys dropped their drinks and ran out the door. Or how about the letter from Lonsdale on the news where she says she is going to bring cookies and drink with the guys???

Ray... what you have done is right. The association has lost sight of the community. If you come back, so will I.

Posted on December 18, 2009 @ 7:39 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3021652 

james k says...

Well My father was a fire fighter,
and if he did not have access to alcohol at work...
-maybe he would not have been abusive to my mom and sisters...
-maybe he would not have molested my sisters causing one to run away from home...and get killed on boxing day.
-maybe I would not have been kidnapped when I was little..
-alcohol is a gateway "drug"
What else are they doing in the hall...
Ray Surret is a good man trying to look out for the "safety of others"
Just goes to show that council and our mayor ...have no idea what to do.....
why is gardner in there he is useless
what are you going to be know for?....
were are the local jobs ?
what is the future for squamish?
looks dismal ..... no vision....
this town needs a enema.......cause of you greg iI will never drive a chevy...
feel free to step in front of a bus....
I stand behind Ray .......Ray for mayor.

Posted on December 18, 2009 @ 7:16 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3021644 

Furby says...

I know first-hand that Ray speaks the truth. I was Clerk at Squamish Fire Rescue for three years until September 2009 and have witnessed several discussions over the years on the matter alcohol in the hall lounge. Ray was targeted by a small handful of volunteers. Their complaints in no way represent the opinion of all the membership. Just ask.

Posted on December 18, 2009 @ 6:51 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3021643 

momoftwo says...

I have been following this story since it first broke. I have been watching the news on tv and reading Ctv.ca and CBC.ca. I have to agree with popular public opinion. This is a no brainer. Alcohol does not belong in a work place. No excuses. The Mayor suggesting that firefighters need to 'decompress' with alcohol after attending horrific accidents is disturbing. Maybe he should attend the next accident that just happens to be the result of a drunk driver. Maybe he'll clue in then. Trying to cover-up his stupidity by implying that the situation was never addressed by Chief Saurette is just an attempt for him to pass the blame. Obviously Mr. Gardner is not fit for his job. And he represents the voice of the people of Squamish? Shameful!

Posted on December 17, 2009 @ 9:40 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3021639 

HS says...

Greg Gardner = denial.

Saurette and Anema = truth.

Posted on December 17, 2009 @ 9:18 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3021638 

billswartz279 says...

Sorry to see Ray Dismissed as he has done a great job over the last 10 Years and yes any booze should not be allowed in any fire hall, and as the vol. fire association said they have"O" polecy Seem someone had to be used as a fall guy for a problem that should never be allowed

Posted on December 17, 2009 @ 8:18 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3021637 

PeterGriffin says...

I've known Ray for many years. I can't believe that he would be making this story up. This is a very serious matter and one I hope and trust District council will take seriously and act upon fast. I would also like to know the reasons why Ray was fired. What was wrong with his performance? He's been there for 10 years. Something seems fishy and doesn't smell right here?

Posted on December 17, 2009 @ 7:24 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3021633 

Post a comment

You must be Registered and logged in to post a comment.

Register or

The Squamish Chief welcomes your opinions and comments. We reserve the right to edit comments for length, style, legality and taste and reproduce them in print, electronic or otherwise. For further information, please contact the editor or publisher.




About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Subscribe | Sitemap / RSS    Glacier Interactive Media & their Glacier Websites    © Copyright 2010 Glacier Interactive Media | User Agreement & Privacy Policy

LOG IN



Lost your password?