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 | 3091644 

HS says...

I'd say from reading the commentary on this topic one thing is clear. Squamish Mayor and Council have bungled the issues surrounding the Fire Dept. For over a year now there have been problems from numbers of fulltime staff to alcohol restrictions applied to the need for a new firehall to the friction that exists between some fulltime versus volunteer firefighters. Firing the Chief does not resolve issues. The same problems exist only with more legal bills being run up at taxpayers expense. This crew of politicians are micromanaging the District to the financial brink. The CAO mysteriously is "lost", the economic guy is dumped, the CFO is going, the Operations guy "retires." Kind of odd don't you think? The community needs to look bigger picture at the power struggle going on at City Hall. There has been a trend towards hiring junior folk who all start off on probation. The latter have less experience and are beholden to their elected overlords. No one has yet to realize the benefit, only the costs both financial and in loss of expertise. Well I stand corrected in one regard. Let the community see the salary the new CAO is receiving. What gave rise to the decision to that type of increase over and above the previous fellow's pay? There is a serious problem at City Hall.

Posted on January 7, 2010 @ 10:11 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3077140 

Bandit says...

The issue at your Fire Department has everything to do with a small group of full time firefighters who want a full time, unionized, fire department. They have heaped abuse on the vounteers for years and the volunteers have had enough.

Posted on January 3, 2010 @ 10:29 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3065145 

PlatosGimp says...

Thank you kindly "Been There!": All community input, opinions and perspectives are important, and necessary if we are to accurately gauge what the best course of action might be when trying to make decisions that have such far reaching personal, political, social, legal and ethical implications.

So lets first look at your principal proposition, which appears to be "The story was about the fire chief accusing the mayor & council of terminating him over an issue of alcohol in the lounge. The rest is conjecture, media hype."

I wont try to define, or interpret your use of the expression "media hype" but lets honestly consider, and debate, the proposition that anything, any topic/issue beyond "the fire chief accusing the mayor & council of terminating him over a issue of alcohol in the lounge", is conjecture.

I will leave it to you to use your own source for the meaning of "conjecture" but lets just say, for the sake of argument, that Wikipedia is at least pretty close in that a conjecture is "a proposition that is unproven". A proposition being an argument, a statement about some thing being true or false.

Lets move on and see if we can agree on which proposition(s) you might be inferring, are indeed false. I will try and make this short, something that I often have difficulty with. But lets propose that the first proposition, or least the most common issue, beyond the "story" you suggest is the "issue/mark", is:

(False) Proposition 1: Having ready access or physical proximity to, alcohol might INCREASE the likelihood of a firefighter consuming alcohol immediately prior to responding to a call.

And, based on the 550 (approx) comments on this issue across 8-10 papers, the second (false according to you), proposition is;

(False) Proposition 2: Supporting the physical proximity, and ready access to, alcohol in a fire-hall (which is supported by the town mayor), DECREASES public confidence in the fire-hall, fire fighters and municipal leaders.

Yes, these are terribly written sentences, but its late and I tend to write run-on-sentences anyway. Hopefully I can still make my point sufficiently clear so you might consider the possible flaws in your logic, argument and proposition.

Assuming I have correctly identified the two key issues/propositions, you are claiming that Propositions 1 and 2 above are FALSE, conjecture. Ok, assuming we agree (you are claiming that Propositions 1 & 2 are false), lets keep moving.

What evidence do you offer up to support your claim that Propositions 1 and 2 are indeed false? Basically that physical proximity to alcohol has absolutely NO BEARING on the likelihood of alcohol consumption by FF's (anyone actually). Or, that supporting alcohol in a municipal building, a fire-hall, by municipal council members has NO EFFECT on public confidence.

If you can offer up some reasonably adequate and peer-reviewed research that supports these claims, I would certainly reconsider my own opinion and if the evidence is sufficient, and of course superior to evidence to the contrary, then I will gladly change my opinion.

I am always grateful to anyone that can correct a mistaken assumption or inaccurate fact I hold to be true.

Let us/me know what evidence you have. :)

btw: I also wanted to try and address your implication that alcohol in the fire-hall is necessary for the “recruitment and retention of firefighters” and to avoid the “destruction of department camaraderie”, avoidance of “losing senior members” or avoiding getting “left with a revolving door of rookie firefighters”. As much as this would have been fun to debate, I am confident that at least 50% of our readers would consider those arguments to be, well, just silly.

Posted on December 24, 2009 @ 2:35 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3038934 

PlatosGimp says...

Thank you kindly "Been There!": All community input, opinions and perspectives are important, and necessary if we are to accurately gauge what the best course of action might be when trying to make decisions that have such far reaching personal, political, social, legal and ethical implications.



So lets first look at your principal proposition, which appears to be "The story was about the fire chief accusing the mayor & council of terminating him over an issue of alcohol in the lounge. The rest is conjecture, media hype."



I wont try to define, or interpret your use of the expression "media hype" but lets honestly consider, and debate, the proposition that anything, any topic/issue beyond "the fire chief accusing the mayor & council of terminating him over a issue of alcohol in the lounge", is conjecture.



I will leave it to you to use your own source for the meaning of "conjecture" but lets just say, for the sake of argument, that Wikipedia is at least pretty close in that a conjecture is "a proposition that is unproven". A proposition being an argument, a statement about some thing being true or false.



Lets move on and see if we can agree on which proposition(s) you might be inferring, are indeed false. I will try and make this short, something that I often have difficulty with. But lets propose that the first proposition, or least the most common issue, beyond the "story" you suggest is the "issue/mark", is:



(False) Proposition 1: Having ready access or physical proximity to, alcohol might INCREASE the likelihood of a firefighter consuming alcohol immediately prior to responding to a call.



And, based on the 550 (approx) comments on this issue across 8-10 papers, the second (false according to you), proposition is;



(False) Proposition 2: Supporting the physical proximity, and ready access to, alcohol in a fire-hall (which is supported by the town mayor), DECREASES public confidence in the fire-hall, fire fighters and municipal leaders.



Yes, these are terribly written sentences, but its late and I tend to write run-on-sentences anyway. Hopefully I can still make my point sufficiently clear so you might consider the possible flaws in your logic, argument and proposition.



Assuming I have correctly identified the two key issues/propositions, you are claiming that Propositions 1 and 2 above are FALSE, conjecture. Ok, assuming we agree (you are claiming that Propositions 1 & 2 are false), lets keep moving.



What evidence do you offer up to support your claim that Propositions 1 and 2 are indeed false? Basically that physical proximity to alcohol has absolutely NO BEARING on the likelihood of alcohol consumption by FF's (anyone actually). Or, that supporting alcohol in a municipal building, a fire-hall, by municipal council members has NO EFFECT on public confidence.



If you can offer up some reasonably adequate and peer-reviewed research that supports these claims, I would certainly reconsider my own opinion and if the evidence is sufficient, and of course superior to evidence to the contrary, then I will gladly change my opinion.

I am always grateful to anyone that can correct a mistaken assumption or inaccurate fact I hold to be true.

Let us/me know what evidence you have. :)

btw: I also wanted to try and address your implication that alcohol in the fire-hall is necessary for the “recruitment and retention of firefighters” and to avoid the “destruction of department camaraderie”, avoidance of “losing senior members” or avoiding getting “left with a revolving door of rookie firefighters”. As much as this would have been fun to debate, I am confident that at least 50% of our readers would consider those arguments to be, well, just silly.

Posted on December 24, 2009 @ 2:32 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3038933 

Been There! says...

Sorry plasto gimp, But I believe you have missed the mark/ issue. The story was about the fire chief accusing the mayor & council of terminating him over a issue of alcohol in the lounge. The rest is conjecture, media hype. I realize in your five years as a resident, you now know it all and will be bestowing your vast knowledge upon us.
Recruitment and retention of firefighters is very important to a volunteer department. We are very fortunate in squamish to have members who stay 20, 30,40 years. The amount of experience they bring to the table is irreplaceable. The Field of firefighting is the most diverse out of the tri-services, and thus the skill and training is even more important. Some fire departments have tried to dismantle the lounges and instead ended up destroying their departments comradery, lost the senior members, and were left with revolving door of rookie firefighters. Without the volunteer firefighters the cost of a full time dept. would be an additional 2.2 million dollars per year, and would still mean they would not be able to enter a structure fire. Most house fires require upwards of twenty five firefighters simply to satisfy worksafe bc requirements.You do the math.
Volunteers are the best bang for the tax payers buck, how about appreciating them. another famous quote "don't believe the hype"

Posted on December 23, 2009 @ 9:18 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3038928 

PlatosGimp says...

On sites elsewhere, like Global, CTV, The Province etc, some commenters 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 and municipality. 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 reasons 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 judgment, alertness and physical capabilities. Therefore, we should all work towards MINIMIZING risk and so we do this by BANNING ALL DRINKING at fire-halls, which also has the added affect of INCREASING public confidence, especially if we make this policy and our municipal leaders (starting with the mayor) come out and PUBLICALLY OPPOSE/CONDEMN drinking on municipal property such as fire-halls (rather than publicly showing support for drinking at the fire-hall). This 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).

When we decided to go with #1 (alcohol), by supporting this publicly and then also trying to disparage the person who apparently tried to encourage us to go with #2 (no alcohol), we came out looking like clueless and ignorant rednecks. The point/facts on why the fire chief was fired, are now moot, irrelevant.


Squamish needs to wake up to what changes are taking place around the world which significantly impact how we are perceived by the community and our neighbors, and how well we can evolve in the future as a community. Some of the comments on the local media sites, and others across Canada, show a perception of Squamish as being "backwoods", filled with "rednecks" and having clueless municipal "leaders". Some have even expressed shame, embarrassment and even regrets for having moved here.
Is this really how we want to be perceived?

We can either carry on as if we were isolated, independent of the rest of the world and do things as we see fit, regardless of whether or not this is the direction taken by the rest of the world. Or, we can work towards integrating with the rest of the world, the community and identify ways in which we can demonstrate global, environmental and socially responsible conduct which aligns with the way in which our global communities are evolving.

Squamish has GREAT potential, but the way I have seen some aspects of this community operate in the past 20 years (5 years as a resident), especially the media and municipality, we are squandering this opportunity in order to do things “our own way”. Quoting a VERY well known Vancouver lawyer when commenting on his, and his colleagues experiences with Squamish...”services which are just good enough”.

Is this how we want the world to view us?

Posted on December 23, 2009 @ 2:14 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3035717 

Squamish FF says...

"Bryan Stewart says...

I work as a carpenter. Worksafe rules do not permit me to drink after I am done my shift at my jobsite, and neither does something called common sense! If the volunteers want to have a pint or two after practice or to "bond" with their fellow volunteers, then head to the local pub and down a few. But taxpayers should not be expected to fund your private lounge so you party to your heart's content in the comfort of your own lounge!"

Bryan, just to let you know, the lounge is leased from the district and any food or beverage is funded by the firefighters, for the firefighters.

So you need not worry that any of our tax dollars are going toward these endeavors.

Thank you for the concern.

We must remember that there is always more to a story than first comes out. Try not to be too judgmental and trust the firefighters and department that have served you well for so many years. This will all work out.

Posted on December 20, 2009 @ 6:18 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3028406 

Bryan Stewart says...

I work as a carpenter. Worksafe rules do not permit me to drink after I am done my shift at my jobsite, and neither does something called common sense! If the volunteers want to have a pint or two after practice or to "bond" with their fellow volunteers, then head to the local pub and down a few. But taxpayers should not be expected to fund your private lounge so you party to your heart's content in the comfort of your own lounge!

Posted on December 20, 2009 @ 2:46 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3026510 

RJ says...

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, contrary to what the Mayor has stated.

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.

Posted on December 19, 2009 @ 7:11 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3024254