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.

Sympathetic to the DOS's (likely) Ethical Dilemma:

As I have been reading the articles, comments, research, public policies, agency policies etc, I have been trying to wrap my head around what may have been the decision-process faced by the DOS. Yes it is easy to launch into ad hominem attacks on the individuals who faced these tough decisions, calling them ignorant, naive etc and I have been guilty of this myself (which I regret and retract). So I thought I would try to consider the big-picture from the perspective of the DOS. Of course I only have the information publicly available and so my assumptions, and identification of the main ethical issues/dilemmas, may not be true or representative of the “real” issues/facts faced by the DOS when having to decide on a course of action. However, I believe it is a reasonable assumption that the dilemma(s) I outline may at least be close to the “real” dilemma(s) faced by the municipality of Squamish.

So with that caveat, I believe that the principle ethical issues faced by the DOS was a choice between A: (Allow Drinking) Perceived short-term benefit to the community by retaining all FF's (maintain current risk levels); but increasing long-term potential risk by allowing alcohol at fire halls. And B: (DONT Allow Drinking) Perceived short-term risk to the community resulting from the loss of some VFF's; but decreasing long-term potential risk by NOT allowing alcohol at fire halls.

Below I expand on what may have been the choices (ethical dilemma), faced by our mayor and council.

A: (Allow Drinking - Perceived Short-Term Benefits)

Benefit: Maintain the short-term benefit to the community by acquiescing to the EXTORTION by some VFF`s who threaten to remove their services if they don’t get to keep their drinking lounge. This way the DOS may have thought they could retain the current level of firefighters ensuring at least the same/current level of safety to the Squamish community.

Risk: Increase the potential of long-term public risk by allowing access to alcohol in the fire hall, allowing FF`s to self-evaluate risk and risk public condemnation by allowing/supporting alcohol in fire halls. We may also increase the risk of alcohol abuse by our fire fighters. Since these were only “potential” risks (likely assuming the issue would not go public) vs the perceived “real” risk of losing some fire fighters as a result of their EXTORTION, we can sympathize with how it may have appeared to be the “right” decision at the time and in the best interests of the community to do whatever it takes to retain ALL current VFF's.

Note: Studies around the world are clear and consistent. Individuals who are in high-risk jobs and/or suffer from PTSD are at a higher risk of alcohol abuse/addiction. So, assuming we can agree that these studies are accurate, valid ect, what are we saying to the world, as a community, when we are willing to put our valuable and respected firefighters at GREATER risk of alcohol abuse/addiction by allowing and supporting alcohol in the fire halls and justifying it as means of “self medication” for their stressful environment?

B: (DO NOT allow Drinking) - Perceived Short-Term Risks)

Benefit: Reduce the long-term potential risk to the community by BANNING alcohol in the fire halls, and align with the scientific/PTSD record/support, public opinion and most public agency policies which OPPOSE alcohol in the fire halls. We may also reduce the risk of alcohol abuse/addiction by our fire fighters by banning alcohol in fire halls.

Risk: Potentially increase short-term local community risk as a result of losing some VFF's who have attempted to EXTORT the DOS into retaining their drinking lounge.


I believe that in order for us (the community) to effectively and constructively evaluate this issue, we must take into account the difficulties faced by community leaders when making decisions which effect the larger community as a whole. We need to consider the reality that individual ethical decisions and moral perspectives/reasoning do not always, or necessarily involve the same factors, or level of obligation/responsibility as those faced by political leaders. What may be “right” for an individual may be “wrong” (ethically) for a community. For instance, if these were indeed the issues, (dilemma) faced by the DOS, we must/should be sympathetic to their decision which was likely based on an honest, and honorable desire to ensure the maximum safety to the community by trying to retain the current number of VFF's. Even if their decision was “forced” as a result of some VFF's using EXTORTION to get their way, I am confident that our municipal leaders based their decisions on what they “believed” was in the best interest of the community, at the time.

Assuming these were indeed the issues facing the DOS, most of us should be able to understand and even sympathize with the ethical dilemma faced by our Mayor and other council members. However, myself and apparently the vast majority of local and national opinions, feel that the DOS erred when choosing the apparent short-term benefits of retaining all VFF`s to maintain current safety levels, over the much longer-term public safety and legal/liability protection afforded by dumping those VFF`s that would use EXTORTION in order to keep their drinking lounge, and to ban all drinking in fire halls.

We (as a community) still need to wrestle with this important safety, ethical and legal issue of alcohol in fire halls. But now we also need to wrestle with the inconsistent, occasionally contradictory and even bizarre statements coming from our municipal leaders in their attempts to minimize, ignore or even redirect the issue to something other than their public support of drinking in the fire halls. In today's social and technologically-enabled community there is an opportunity to fully engage the public in an open, transparent and honest dialog on this issue. I am also confident that given the valid concern raised by many over our DOS efforts to retain VFF's willing to use extortion to get their way, that there would be many in the community willing to step up to the plate to replace any of those VFF's who need to have booze in the fire hall in order to provide their services.

I will state publicly that I am willing to fill any available volunteer firefighter spot lost as a result of banning alcohol in the fire hall. Assuming I meet the requirements and can pass any of the necessary tests.

Wish I were a lawyer. I'd love to be legal counsel for "lost" staff and the community of Squamish suing Mayor and Council. Oh my goodness I'd have a heyday fighting both for the good of those being maligned and make a fistful of dollars in aggravated damages. How sad for the community that their tax dollars are being eaten up to feed the DOS lawyers. Has anyone figured out the legal tab they've run up in personnel issues in their first 365 days? I'd say it might just set a record...so if the potholes on your street are not being fixed, the snow not removed quickly or at all, services generally declining it may reflect how these politicians are choosing to spend your money. They'd rather "lose" seasoned senior staff that do hard work on your behalf, replace them with those more junior and willing to genuflect, than look after the public good.

I can say from a few years of experience with the DOS that the concept of "openness" is completely foreign to the municipality. Myself, and a number of other local "open" advocates (open-information, open-technology, open-government etc) in this community laugh at the DOS's total ignorance of these concepts, which have shown phenomenal growth and evolution internationally. With regards to open-technologies, such as open-source, our municipality has had at least 3 years of access to local support, consultation, freely provided suggestions and recommendations on how significant amounts of money can be saved through the use of a variety of "open" technologies. If the DOS can save money in their ICT infrastructure, this could mean reduced costs to the community, maybe even the ability to retain a few key positions/people. Maybe enough could be saved to add one more paid fire fighter position? The benefits, significant costs savings, increased interoperability and in many cases increased security of open-technologies are a given now. You have to be living under a rock, or completely indifferent to, or uninterested in, global business and technology trends to not know this today. Right next door in North Vancouver, their municipal government recently saved nearly 1 million, yes 1 million dollars in IT costs by switching to an open-source VOIP/PBX. And this is only one example of the many ways in which business and government have demonstrated vast financial savings along with increased interoperability, control and in many cases, increased efficiencies with regards to "open" technologies. Although the DOS has "dabbled" in open-technologies with a few deployments, clearly demonstrating significant value in many areas, the "old-boys-club" and status quo of outdated, phenomenally expensive closed/propitiatory technology solutions still prevail based on ICT leadership developed in the early 90's.

When it comes to open-government, what an abysmal failure and embarrassment. With Vancouver leading the way in BC when it comes to their mission, new policies and efforts towards a more "open" government, and the fact that the DOS has direct and immediate access to a number of very-well-informed leaders in the areas of "openness" (both in technology and information), there is no valid, or believable excuse for this embarrassing failure. Trying to present the appearance of, and support for, "open-government" by publicly stating a new goal of "open, fair and accurate communication", without actually understanding what this means, or obtaining at least some knowledgeable advice/consultation on exactly how this can be implemented effectively, demonstrates a profound lack of leadership. An issue/concern (leadership) which is now being raised, and directed towards the DOS, quite frequently.

Globally the phenomenon of "openness" has caught on in science (open-science), education (open-access), publication (open-journals), information (open-knowledge) and government (open-government). Many, including myself, believe that this paradigm-shifting phenomenon towards "openness" got its start with the remarkable growth and popularity of open-source and open-standards technologies (think of the Internet, Linux and Google). Given the transparent, open and collaborative philosophy behind these "open" models, they have shown international support, especially in developing nations and international bodies. In fact, the United Nations and dozens of international governments and organizations have openly supported and have been implementing "open" technologies for nearly a decade.

For a truly comprehensive definition of “openness”, both from a technological as well as information perspective, check out Google's definition of “open” written by their Chief Technology Strategist, Jonathan Rosenberg.

The Meaning of Open:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html

“Open will win. It will win on the Internet and will then cascade across many walks of life: The future of government is transparency. The future of commerce is information symmetry. The future of culture is freedom. The future of science and medicine is collaboration. The future of entertainment is participation. Each of these futures depends on an open Internet.” (Google, Jonathan Rosenberg)

Open Government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_government

Campaign for Open Government:
http://www.opengovernment.ca/

Open Source Trends in Government
http://www.news-itc.com/index.php/2009/12/17/open-source-trends-in-government/

Open Education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_educational_resources

Open Access:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_%28publishing%29

Open Science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science

And for those interested in reading more about the many ways in which our community, our mayor and how this local "fire hall drinking" has played out in the media, a Facebook Page has been created for open/public debate and a central information resource for links to the media reports on our community, or the issue of alcohol being available and municipally-supported, in our local fire halls.

On Facebook search for "Ban Fire Hall Drinking"

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

If the community sues Mayor and Council for mismanagement you can bet one or more of them will finally break rank and start singing the truth. The past 365 days has been a reign of terror at DOS City Hall. Shame on these politicians for behaving with such a cavalier attitude towards senior career municipal government staff. Political heads are about to roll over this fiasco.