ON BEHALF OF: THE TOWN OF TILTON FINDINGS REPORT RE: A study/review for the purpose of an evaluation of the Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Fire Department and Fire Department Liasons from 2011 through January 2016. There are 3 objectives to be completed during the study/review: 1. Instances of and/or allegations of harassment. 2. Instances of and/or allegations of bullying. 3. Instances of and/or allegations of intimidation. REPORT PREPARED FOR: The Town Council Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton REPORT PREPARED BY: Cliff Yetman (Sgt) RCMP (Retired) SECTION 1 SECTION 2 SECTION 3 SECTION 4 INDEX THE MOTION A. Background B. Allegations C. Issues STU DYZREVIEW A. Scope B. Terms of Reference C. Methodology HISTORY A. At issue B. October/November 2015 C. 2011/July 2015 D. October/November 2015 (Continued) E. January 2016 ISSUES DISCUSSION The Mass Resignation The Culture The Process Gender Bias (or not) Conflict of interest Council The Apology The Handshake (or not) The Effect Chief Hiscock trimwopow? -2- SECTION 5 SECTION 6 SECTION 7 SECTION 8 SECTION 9 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS THE ALLEGATIONS 0F NOVEMBER 16TH. 2015 9" Mismanagement of Town Property Failure to Comply with Government Legislation Failure to Enforce a Direct Order of Council Failure to Meet Council?s Request Regarding Preparation and Submission of Reports Failure to Maintain a Program of Promotion et al. Reported Allegations of Sexual Harassment and Harassment in General PROMOTION (OR NOT) IN CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION APPENDICIES Terms of Reference Sexual Harassment Policy 2005 Letter of Invitation - The Allegations of November 16th, 2015 Council Motions of November 16th, 2015 Report of October 2015 Transcript from CBC Website, January 215?, 2016 The Com pass Article of January 20th, 2016 The Principles of Natural Justice The National Post - Article of January 21?, 2016 The Star.com Article of January 22nd, 2016 SECTION 1 THE MOTION A. BACKGROUND: During a meeting of the Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Town Council on November 16th, 2015, Councillor Tony Dominix, seconded by Councillor Brenda Seymour, made a motion to ?re? evaluate and re-structure? the Town?s Fire Department. During the ensuing debate, Councillor Seymour, who is also a member of the Fire Department, read a list of alleged administrative and operational shortcomings on the part of Fire Chierictor Hiscock. Motions were then made pursuant to applicable sections of The Municipalities Act, first of all to dismiss, then to suspend, Chief Hiscock, with both motions being defeated. These allegations will be discussed in due course, however, it was the final claim, that of ?reported allegations of sexual harassment, harassment in general?, which formed the impetus for the resulting backlash and the reasons for this review. B. ALLEGATIONS: (As per Appendix Allegation No. 1: MISMANAGEMENT OF TOWN PROPERTY. This allegation was a three part claim, that damage had been incurred to the pumper as well as the Fire Department building, that an Occupational Health and Safety inspection had been conducted and found that the Department had been in violation of 12 orders, mainly relating to Self Contained Breathing Apparatus and air filling stations, and that there had been a failure to keep proper documentation regarding equipment maintenance. Allegation No. 2: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION. Pursuant to Section 23 of the Fire Prevention Act, Fire Chief Regulations, Municipalities Act, and with regard to minimum standards legislation, damage to the pumper and building was a direct result of failure to comply with applicable legislation. Allegation No. 3: FAILURE TO EN FORCE A DIRECT ORDER OF COUNCIL. Council had given the Fire Chief direction that, pursuant to Provincial guidelines, the Department was to "standown" on all medical only calls received. After direction had been given, this order was not complied with on November 3rd, 2015, nor had the order been relayed to Fire Department membership during a regular meeting. Allegation No. 4: FAILURE TO MEET REQUEST REGARDING PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF REPORTS OF FIRE DEPARTMENT LIFE SAFETY. There is no reasoning provided, simply a reference to the Fire Chief Regulations pursuant to the Municipalities Act, and Section 64(7) of the Act. Allegation No. 5: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A PROGRAM OF PROMOTION OF PERSONNEL, FAILURE TO PROPERLY ALLOCATE BUDGETED TRAINING ALLOWANCES, FAILURE TO DEPLOY DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL FOR MAXIMUM EFFICTIVENESS. Trained Firefighter Level had been deployed on traffic duties while untrained personnel had been directly on scene in violation of Fire Chief Regulations pursuant to the Municipalities Act, Section 415, a-k. In addition, an unnamed Firefighter had been refused access to training allowance benefits and Town firefighting equipment to attend Provincial Fire School. Allegation No. 6: REPORTED ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT, AND HARASSMENT IN GENERAL. This is by far the most serious of the allegations, and while there is no written explanation provided, Councillor Seymour references on two occasions during Council debate the showing of a, pornographic film as part of the curriculum during a vehicle extrication course?. -5- c. At issue is simply whether or not, between 2011 and January of 2016, behaviour ofthe members ofthe Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Volunteer Fire Department meet the definition of harassment, bullying, or intimidation. SECTION 2 - A. SCOPE: As per the motion moved, seconded, and passed at a regular meeting of Council held May 18th, the Town conduct a study/review into instances of and/ or allegations of harassment in the Fire Appendix refers. B. TERMS OF REFERENCE: To complete on behalf of The Town of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton a study/review of the Fire Department and Fire Department Liaisons from 2011 through to January of 2016. C. METHODOLOGY: This study/review is undertaken in accordance with the Sexual Harassment Policy for The Town of Spaniard?s Bay, a policy enacted by Council in 2005 and attached to this Report as Appendix Since there are several other degrees of harassment, and the mandate of this study/review is to determine instances of and/or allegations of harassment (not exclusively of a sexual nature) reference will be made to other policies, including the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Code, The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Human Resources Policy Manual section titled, ?Harassment and Discrimination Free Workplace Policy (Creating a Respectful Work Environment?, The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service of Canada, as well as frequent references to Case Law citations from assorted Harassment Tribunals and Courts. As perthe Terms of Reference, all past and current members of the Spaniards Bay Volunteer Fire Department, as well as the two Council Liaisons from that period, were notified via letter and were invited to take part in the process. Appendix refers. A total of eighteen (18) individuals responded and were interviewed, and all but one of those interviews were taped. Normally, an investigation of this nature, where allegations are made, would take the format of a statement from the complainant, with the alleged respondent also providing a statement in defence of his/her actions. In this case allegations, although documented, were not made directly to me, and, as a result, I was not afforded the opportunity to ask either clarifying or explanatory questions. Since so much of this story played out in the media, it became necessary to rely on media reports, again, without the benefit of being able to verify the accuracy of those reports in terms of both content and context. Because the media was so central, however, the content had to be dealt with as was reasonably practicable to do. -7- Evidence collected and used in the determination consists of: (1) Relevant copies of media articles, as well as relevant portions of media interviews. (2) Relevant excerpts from minutes of council meetings of The Town of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton as well as similar excerpts from minutes of the volunteer Fire Department of The Town of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton. (3) Relative direct and corroborative evidence as documented by signed or recorded statements of persons notified by letter from The Town of Spaniards Bay/Tilton. (4) Relative direct and corroborative evidence of individuals interviewed by the investigator outside of those identified in the Terms of Reference but necessary in order to either corroborate evidence gathered in Section (3) above, or considered necessary in the interests of history, local knowledge, perspective, or context. (5) Documentation and/or information from any other source which the Investigator feels is necessary and/or relevant Determination by the Investigator will be based on the understanding that: (1) The onus to prove the allegation rests with the complainant; (2) The standard of proof for the allegation is a balance of probabilities which meets the test of reasonableness; (3) The investigator will not consider the credibility of any person in the absence of evidence that directly relates to the credibility of that person. Definitions: Harassment: As defined in the Town of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Sexual Harassment Policy of August 22nd, 2005 ?any behaviour that embarrasses or humiliates a person and that a reasonable person should have known to be unwelcome?. Bullying: In the absence of a Policy definition, the term must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, that is ?to treat abusively; to affect by means of force or coercion; to use browbeating language?. Merriam Webster?s Deluxe Dictionary, Tenth Collegiate Edition Intimidation: Again, in the absence of a Policy definition, source as quoted above defines the term as ?to make timid orfearful; frighten; to compel or deter by or as if by threats?. Case Law: - Part of Common Law,? it consists ofjudgments given by courts and tribunals in the interpretation and proper application of legislation in cases brought before them. Abbreviations. Shortened Versions, and/or Acronyms: For the purposes of this report, unless otherwise noted: Council means the Town Council of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton. Department means the Volunteer Fire Department of the Town of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton. Town means the Town of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Study, Review, or Investigation refer to this process. FF refers to Firefighter. Government is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. B.A. refers to Breathing Apparatus Verbatim quotes are transcripts of portions of recorded interviews Non-Verbatim quotes are not necessarily exact word quotes, but are drawn from interview notes made at the time of the interview or in listening to taped interviews at a later date. -9- SECTION 3 HISTORY AT ISSUE At issue is what would appear to be the simple question as outlined in Section that being whether or not ?instances of and/or allegations of harassment in the fire department meet the following standard: 1. Harassment 2. Bullying 3. intimidation Woven into that rather simple statement, however, is a complex and, at times, convoluted series of events, highlighted by Council motions, Department meetings, press conferences and subsequent media coverage, both mainstream and social, innuendo, exaggerations, accusations, misinterpretation, miscommunication, and assumptions, both real and imagined. When approached by Council and asked if I was interested in undertaking this review, I had some questions around what exactly they were looking for, what purpose they had in mind, what they intended to accomplish, and what would be the end result of any recommendations which may follow. By way of history, I was informed that issues pertaining to the Fire Department had culminated with the January 19th, 2016 resignation of many of the Town?s firefighters, effectively necessitating the assistance of neighboring services until a re?formation of their own Department could be accomplished. In the wake of events of January 19?, Council committed to the conduct of an independent study/review of all aspects related to the operation of the Department from 2011 to January of 2016. The significance of those dates will become apparent in due course. Subsequent to its initial commitment, Council had also received overtures from a committee of concerned citizens who were anxious to see this review proceed, given the fact that in the aftermath of specific allegations, individuals had been affected deeply, both privately and professionally, reputations had been tarnished, and the general feeling was that the Town had been weakened, both in terms of the loss of fire fighting expertise and, not insignificantly, the loss of dedicated volunteers. At the end of the process, I will answer the questions of whether harassment, and/or bullying, and/or intimidation occurred. Analysis of those issues will be based on the guidelines previously stated, utilizing evidence gathered, applicable legislation, and Case Law intepretation and application. - -10- Along with the two reasons noted, there was a third factor in Council?s decision to commission this review. As noted previously, individuals had been deeply affected, individuals who, for various reasons, had not been given the opportunity to respond to matters affecting them. To its credit, Council has recognized their right to be heard. The purpose of this investigation, therefore, is threefold. First of all, to meet the objectives as listed in the Terms of Reference; secondly, to satisfy the Town?s commitment to have an independent review of the Fire Department; thirdly, to give interested and concerned parties the opportunity to give their version and/or opinion of events as they unfolded. Parameters for the third part of the review were articulated in a letter dated August 24, 2016 from Council to all past and present members ofthe Department, as well as Council Liaisons from 2011 to January of 2016, giving them the opportunity to participate. Much of this report, then, is their story, told in a series of approximately 30 hours of both tape recorded and verbal interviews with both past and current members of the Department as well as Council Liaisons from that period of time. In addition to those interviews, and as previously mentioned, I took the liberty of, at times, stepping outside the Terms of Reference, and either interviewed or had general conversation with individuals whom I felt could offer something of value, either of a corroborative nature or, more generally, to fill in some of the history and politics which were clearly at play. During the interview process, I found remarkable the general reluctance of interviewees, most ofwhom felt deeply hurt and offended by events as they transpired, to assign blame, express acrimony, or desire anything other than a simple acknowledgment that events as reported were far in excess of anything they had seen or heard, or of which they had any control or responsibility. This report, then, is not about finding blame. There will, however, be findings of responsibility, and conversely, irresponsibility. Any such finding is totally mine, based on conclusions made following an analysis of evidence gathered during this process. In the interest of structure, and to present the rather voluminous amount of information gathered during the course of this investigation into a readable discourse, I have broken the material into applicable segments, with analysis, rationalization, and finding, if applicable, to each issue. -11- B. 2015 Members of the Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Volunteer Fire Department were becoming increasingly concerned with information and feedback from the community at large, and, indeed, from outside their community, that matters of concern to their Department were being raised and discussed at Council meetings. Specifically issues ranged from allegations that that the Department was being mismanaged, that Town property had been damaged, that direct orders received from Council had been ignored, and, most disturbing to them at the time, that there was an element of Council that wanted to oust their Fire Chief, Victor Hiscock. At that point, both Firefighters and Firettes began sending representatives to Council meetings, and both their concern and frustration only intensified when they heard Fire Department business being raised in Council chambers, and, because they were not on the agenda for a particular meeting being unable to respond to, or offer any explanation for, what was being said. In the meantime, the annoyance over complaints about the Chief were exacerbated by the fact that although Chief Hiscock had requested, and this is well documented in both Council and Department minutes, that he or a designate be placed on the agenda whenever matters of concern to his Department were being discussed, this was not being done. Adding to the overall irritation and sense of abandonment growing within the Department was the fact that the allegations were being brought forth by Councillor Brenda Seymour, who is also a Firefighter and was perceived, by them, to be in a Conflict of Interest situation by having a privilege none of them did; that is, first hand access to Fire Department business, along with the advantage of being able to present only one opinion, hers, to her fellow Councillors. For his part, Chief Hiscock was similarly stymied by the reality that, as a Department Head within the Town, he was being disrespected by the fact that information was coming back to him from various sources, both within the Town of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton, and even from neighboring communities, from people who had attended public meetings to individuals who had purported to have overheard coffee house conversations between persons of prominence within the Town, openly discussing the Chief, his perceived shortcomings, and the attempts to have him replaced, voluntarily or otherwise. As he was being given nothing from anyone in an official capacity, the undermining of his authority through the rumor mill was beginning to exact atoll, to the point that he refused to attend, knowing that he would be disrespected, and, in the minds of himself and his members, insulted, and denied the opportunity to speak either on his own behalf or on behalf of his Department. -12- On November the Chief was called to a privileged meeting of Council, ostensibly to respond to the allegations which were swirling about him. At the time, he was under a great deal of personal stress. In addition to the allegations, the rumors, the innuendo, and the disrespect, his father was terminally ill. When he and his Deputy Chief, Randy Davis, arrived for this meeting, they learned that, because of a work commitment, the Mayor would not be present, and a concern was raised that it should not proceed without his presence, however, the Chief stated that since other meetings had been cancelled, and that he had put his personal commitments aside to attend, that it should go ahead. In retrospect, that was probably a mistake. At the outset Councillor Tony Dominix objected to the presence of Assistant Chief Davis and left the chambers in protest. In order for the meeting to proceed, and to facilitate Councillor Dominix? return, Hiscock asked Davis to leave. Let us be clear about the tenor and tone of this meeting. While it was, officially, a privileged meeting of Council, it was, in effect, a hearing related to his performance as Chief. In other words, in the face of allegations of misconduct and mismanagement, he was now being denied that most basic right of any respondent, the right to representation. Councillor Seymour was not present for that meeting, however, as Chief Hiscock was exiting the room, to his consternation he encountered Ms. Seymour outside the door to Council chambers, and after he had gone, the meeting continued behind closed doors. While he had no idea of what the discussion was after he left, the Optics, i.e. Councillor Seymour standing outside the door with hertelephone in hand, left him with the feeling that, while not in chambers during the meeting, his chief antagonist had somehow been privy to all that was being said. After he left, the privileged meeting of Council continued, and when a proposal was made to have an inquiry done into the Fire Department, Councilior Seymour?s response was that she was not going to wait for months until an inquiry was completed; at this point, an ultimatum was issued that Council, the right thing?, within two weeks, or, in the alternative, the media would be present and she would be asking for the Chief?s dismissal. On November 16th, two weeks after the Seymour ultimatum, during a public meeting, Councillor Dominix made a motion that immediate action be taken to re-evaluate and re- structure the Fire Department. During the subsequent discussion, Councillor Seymour presented a list of six (6) alleged administrative and operational shortcomings by Chief Hiscock. This list, outlined in Section and also attached as a separate Appendix,?D?, will be discussed in its entirety as a separate analysis, since it impacts directly on the operation and administration of the Department during the study/review?s mandated period. -13- The first five (5) items on this list are supported by brief explanations and references to specific legislation and/or regulations. The final, unnumbered item, while it is clearly the most serious, i.e. ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMANT, 8: HARASSMENT iN contains no explanation, other than a citation of the Sections of the Municipalities Act referencing suspension and dismissal of various officials, including a Department Head. Clearly, the allegations and accompanying motions were designed to create the appearance of going for the jugular. The motion to dismiss under Section 68(1) ofthe Act preceded that made under Section 67.(1) to suspend, however, the motion to dismiss was made with such a blatant disregard for the procedural fairness as articulated by Sub-section (2) and that there is a lingering suspicion that the motions were designed to fail, presented as so much theater for the benefit of the press who, as promised, were in attendance. The motions, as recovered from Council minutes, are attached as Appendix The applicable section of the Municipalities Act is as follows: 68.(1) A manager; clerk, or department head may be dismissed by a vote of 2/3 of the councillors in office, where the vote to dismiss is con?rmed by a similar vote at a meeting of the councillors held not earlier than 30 days after the meeting at which the first vote to dismiss was carried. (2) A meeting of councillors may not hold a vote on a motion to dismiss under subsection (1) unless a written notice of the meeting signed by the councillors intending to make and second the motion is deposited with the clerk, mayor or chairperson; and a copy of the notice addressed to the person who is the subject of the motion is served on him or her personally by or leaving it at his or her latest known address at least one week before the date of the meeting of the council at which the motion to dismiss is to be made. While it is not at all clear, it is, in fact, somewhat apparent that the motions to first of all dismiss, then to suspend, were made pursuant to the unnumbered item, No.6, since it would appear that the misconduct, which, if substantiated, would support the process. The previous items refer only to allegations of mismanagement, which would not provide grounds for effective presentation of the motions. If that is the case, it is rather curious that the motion to suspend effectively seized Council to make a decision based on allegations only, since this is the lone item in which they are mentioned. -14- Whatever the purpose of the motions of November 16th, the seeds of allegations of sexual harassment and harassment in general had been planted. It would take anothertwo months and two totally unrelated events before a local controversy would become a full blown crisis with Province wide and, indeed, nationwide, coverage. -15- C. 2011-July 2015 Council minutes, other documentation, and general conversation have referred to a December 15, 2010 study completed by Mr. Gerald Hiscock into the suspension and subsequent dismissal of Fire Fighter Brenda Seymour from the Volunteer Fire Department, and while it is not the intention of this review to re-evaluate events as they unfolded at that time, it will be helpful, in the interests of perspective, history, and lost opportunity, to reference periodically his comments and suggestions, since failure to follow through on some of his recommendations from that report contributed, I believe, in some measure, to the events of 2015. It is interesting that much of Mr. Hiscock?s consideration for re?instatement of Ms. Seymour to the Department surrounded the process which took place. While there are express differences, I am struck by the similarities, identified by Gerald Hiscock as unacceptable in 2010, to the process used to both castigate and undermine the Chief in 2015, specifically, his right to proper notification and to be properly heard in terms of his own Defence. By extension, his Department became embroiled in the same controversy, since allegations of harassment were construed to include the membership as a whole. In order to fully implement and benefit from Mr. Hiscock?s recommendations, in retrospect they should have been given serious debate by Council, and, in collaboration with the Fire Department through the Chief, been adopted as warranted, or, in the alternative, been rejected with justification. Other than the recommendation to re?instate Ms. Seymour, it does not appear that his other suggestions were given serious consideration. That is unfortunate, since some of his comments and recommendations, particularly those dealing with the Chief?s administrative experience?, could have been addressed through appropriate training, and it is ironic that the allegations levelled against Chief Hiscock on November 16th, 2015 were largely administrative in nature. The spirit, if not the intent, of Gerald Hiscock?s recommendations started to unravel barely two months after his report was presented. At a Council meeting of February 23, 2011, when Councillor Dominix, who was then Fire Department Council Liaison, discussed a number of items that the Department wished to address with Council, among them do a list of qualifications and expectations for the position of Fire Chief, but the Department would like to have the list presented to them. They then would like to pick their Chief at the annual meeting through their election process as usual, and that the Chief then be accepted and passed through Council?. -15- After some discussion, a motion was made by Councillor Seymour, seconded by Councillor Dominix, that Council advertise for the position of Volunteer Fire Chief, and that the position be open to current members of the Fire Department, as well as non?members. Council would then prepare a list of duties and qualifications and invite prospective candidates to submit resumes as per normal hiring practice. A promising start, but one which was not brought to fruition. At Council?s meeting of March 215?, Councillor Dominix summarized his meeting with the Fire Department in which he presented and reviewed the criteria listed for the position of Chief. Following a motion by Deputy Mayor Menchions, seconded by Councillorlewer, Council rescinded the motion of February 23rd to advertise for the position. On May 7th, the Fire Department held its election of officers and, as per their request of February 23rd, re?elected Victor Hiscock to continue as their Chief. On May 16th, 2011, council carried a motion made by Councillor Seymour, seconded by Councillor Dominix, that Mr. Hiscock continue as Fire Chief. What followed for the next several years was a period of relative calm and apparent goodwill between Council and the Fire Department. While there was some initial tension following the re-instatement of Ms. Seymour, the vast majority of the rank and file wanted to put the controversy of 2010 behind them and move on to continue their efforts to provide a quality fire service to the Town. What follows are excerpts, non? verbatim, of matters pertaining to the Department as obtained from Council minutes. I have taken the liberty to use bold letters where applicable, since some ofthese observations are, I believe, relevant to the discussion of issues surrounding subsequent allegations. June 20th, 2011 - Councillor Collins commended the Fire Department for their commitment to training overthe past few months. March 2012 - Mayor Drover thanked Chief Hiscock and his Department for the improvements made to the Fire Department as was recognized in the recent inspection by Fire and Emergency Services. At that same meeting, the Chief put forth the Department?s rather list of priorities for equipment, some of which were addressed in the above mentioned inspection. Interestingly, that list included replacement of the cascade system in use by the Department, and the significance of that request will be referenced in the issues discussion of the allegations of November 16th, 2015. -17- At that time, the appropriate motion was made that Council accept the Department?s list in principle, subject, of course, to the financial details being worked out to the benefit of both the Town and Department. November 5th, 2012 - Chief Hiscock updated Council on the status of Breathing Apparatus (B.A.) Bottles at the Department. Eight bottles had either been taken out of service or were about to because they had become outdated. One other had been removed because of damage, and the Town had been successful in receiving funding to replace just four ofthe bottles. As is common to volunteer fire departments throughout the Province, much of the equipment was obtained through various funding initiatives, however, they were not in a position to raise funds at this time, and requested that Council replace the full complement of bottles. Cost for each replacement was $495.00. Orders of six units or more would reduce the cost to $450.00 each. The matter was subsequently referred to the Finance Committee for review and disposition. Unknown date, probably early 2013 - Two new members were accepted into the Department after Chief Hiscock signed off on Training, i.e. the Newfoundland and Labrador Minimum Training Standards Orientation Level. Councillor Collins passed along her thanks to Chief Hiscock and the members of the Fire Department for their help over the years with such projects as the Christmas Parade, Christmas Tree Lighting, Santa Ride throughout the town, and other events. Mayor Drover passed along thanks to Chief Hiscock and members. Councillor Seymour advised that she is pleased with the progress being made with the Fire Department. March 2013 - Councillor Dominix summarized a meeting he had had with the Fire Department to put together a list of capital priorities. The list was accepted and it was agreed that Councillor Dominix would meet with Chief Hiscock to put together a price list. At the same meeting a list of members of the proposed Fire Department Executive for 2013 was presented and accepted by Council. Agrfl15?h, 2013 - Chief Hiscock addressed Council on the topic of funding for the Fire Department. Subsequent discussion took place on the subject of the new passenger limitation for the Rescue Van. Because of those limitations, circumstances may now dictate that members travel to emergency scenes using private vehicles, and the question was raised as to whether or not they would be covered under the Town?s insurance policy in such circumstances. -13- During this time, Council was actively in the process of applying for funding to purchase a new walk in Rescue Vehicle, the old one having outlived its usefulness and was, in fact, currently out of service. Most of Council?s discussion in late 2013 and into early 2014 regarding the Fire Department centered on efforts to secure funding for this new vehicle. A significant change as far as the Fire Department was concerned occurred in the Fall of 2013 following the municipal elections ofthat year, when Councillor Sheri Collins replaced Councillor Tony Dominix as Council Liaison with the Fire Department. In the meantime, Councillor Seymour had failed in her attempt to win the Mayor?s chair in that same election, having been defeated by Wayne Smith. The Department continued its training program; for example, during the weekend of October 26th and 27th, they hosted the regional training sessions for Fire inspection for 25 attendees, including five from the Spaniards Bay Department. November 25th, 2013 Councillor Collins advised that the Fire Department had formed a committee to re?instate the Firemen?s Ball and that the date set for 2014, January 25?, would coincide with the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Department. February 24th, 2014 Chief Hiscock presented and summarized financial statements from the Fire Department for the year ending December 31?, 2013, and invited Council to address any concerns they might have. Again, the purchase of new equipment was discussed, including the possible acquisition of a set ofiaws of Life. The Department had received a quote and arrangements were made for the applicable committees to meet for discussion on the matter. The Chief thanked Council for the co-operation and assistance given to his Department over the last several years, and expressed his appreciation for the good working relationship and assistance given by Council when needed. Also referenced in this meeting was a new policy of the Department to submit Quarterly reports to Council. The significance of the frequency of reporting will become evident later in Section 5, Analysis and Findings, with regard to the allegations of November 16th. Earl); March, 2014 At a Special Meeting of Council, representatives from the Fire Department met with Council to finalize the purchase of the laws of Life. The Department proposed to make a down payment of $5000.00 and were comfortable making payments in the range of $400.00. -19- Also acknowledged was the fact that purchase of a used set would save an additional $9,000.00 as opposed to buying the equipment new. The Town Manager summarized the repayment option on a loan of $21,500.00 for a five year term at payments of $358.33 plus interest of prime plus The resulting motion had the Town approve the purchase, with the Fire Department agreeing to repay at the terms as quoted. April 2014 Council moved to replace one overhead doorforthe Fire Hall at a cost of approximately $2800.00, and Councillor Collins provided an update of recent activities at the Department. In ?The Jaws of Life are now on site. The Fire Department willput them into service once training has been completed. A fundraiser was held on March 30, 2014 in which $2500.00 was raised toward the payments on the loan for the Jaws of Life. We were successful in purchasing several fire pumps from the Town of Outer Cove, Middle Cove, Logy Bay at their recent auction. Councillor Collins also advised that the Department recently accepted three new members. Mayor Smith asked Councillor Collins to pass along congratulations to the Fire Department Members for the successful fundraiser held March 30, 2014?. June 30th: 2014 ?Fire Chief Victor Hiscock updated Council on the activities of the Fire Department. The Department has responded to 21 calls for service so far this year. They now have the laws of Life in service and training has been done at the smoke house along with ladder training and pump training. The Chief thanked Council for providing Internet access at the Fire Hall. He asked if Council could clear away the Town sign along Conception Bay Highway near Herb ?5 Place and if Council will be replacing the emergency phone number on the garage door (a new door was recently installed). Mayor Smith asked the Chief to arrange for the sign on the door advertising the phone number and that Council would pay the bill for it. Councillor Collins asked if Council would consider placing an ad in the Association of Fire Services 50th Anniversary Convention Booklet. It was moved by Councillor Sheppard, seconded by Councillor Dominix, that Council purchase a half page ad in the Association of Fire Services 50?h Anniversary Convention Booklet for $150.00. Deputy Mayor Brazil asked Chief Hiscock how many calls for service were fires and how many were accident calls. The Chief advised that the calls were about half and half. Mayor Smith thanked Chief Hiscock for attending the meeting. He left at 8:00 PM. -20- February 23rd, 2015 Chief Hiscock presented the list of Executive Members elected at the Fire Department?s election of officers on February At this meeting, he was accompanied by the Departments treasurer, Ross Snow, and in addition to presenting the Department?s 2014 Financial Statements, the Chief entertained questions from Council, following which the appropriate motion was carried to accept the documents. The Chief then gave Council an update on recent activities, including the Annual AGM, election of officers, and training activities, including upcoming events. He also advised that he had had meetings with the Town Manager for the purpose of applying for funding under the Fire and Emergency Services Equipment Program as well as the Fire Protection Vehicle Program. One of the goals at this time was to have all members certified for Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus. Also on the Department?s agenda was a plan to have all members trained to do the home inspection course as there had been an increase in the number of properties that require inspection for home oxygen. In addition, they were actively seeking new members, and had received nine applications to fill the three vacant positions. On July 9th, 2015, Firefighter Brenda Seymour was sworn in as a member of Council following a by-election necessitated by the resignation of Mayor Wayne Smith and Council?s appointment of Councillor Tony Menchions to assume the Mayor?s chair. -21- D. October/November 2015 (Continued) It was actually a Council meeting of September 28th which provided the intimation that something had changed, or was about to change, in the positive relationship which had been built and nurtured between the Town and it?s Fire Department during the preceding years. In that meeting, a list of six (6) prospective firefighters were tabled, advising that these had completed the aforementioned Minimum Training Standards Orientation Level. The six names had been signed off by both the training officer and Fire Chief and, as per previous applicants submitted to Council, the names would be accepted before being submitted to the Fire Commissioner. Normal routine was, for logistical reasons, to suspend training during the summer, however, Fire Department minutes indicate, and several of the firefighters interviewed confirmed that experienced members had maintained training throughout the summer months in order to bring these recruits up to standard. To the trepidation of the Chief and training personnel, Councillors Seymour, Dominix, and Sheppard voted against the motion to accept the names submitted, apparently in protest over two of the names on the list. In the meantime, discussion had begun within the Fire Department as to why Councillor Seymour, in particular, had voted against the motion. On October 15?, during the Department?s regular meeting, she was asked why she had rejected two of the names. Minutes of that meeting indicate that she chose not to respond at this time.? Although there is a paucity of detail in the minutes, it is clear that there was more debate on the subject. In fact, the question is posed in the minutes What?s thefull story on Brenda and minimum stondordsE??, and the ongoing debate regarding Conflict of Interest with regards to Councillor/Firefighter Seymour was again raised during this meeting. From Fire Department minutes should not be allowed to vote. Conflict of interest. Both training, including minimum standards, as well as conflict of interest will be addressed as separate arguments later in this report in Section 4, Issues Discussion. Chief Hiscock attended the Council meeting of October 19th, and, again, asked Council to advise him if there were any matters arising pertaining to his Department. At this time, he explained to Council the Department?s policy for sending members to the annual Provincial Firefighter?s Convention. Briefly, the Chief attends each year, plus two members chosen by random draw. Once a Firefighter has attended, he/she is eliminated from the draw until all others have attended, thus giving all members a chance at attendance. -22- Controversy arose when Firefighter Seymour, who had attended three years ago and was thus not eligible to go as a Fire Department delegate, went instead as a Councillor, yet were her firefighter?s uniform for the duration of the convention. In effect, she had taken someone else?s chance to attend three years ago, and the fact that she could now do an end around their system and go on Council?s dime was not seen by them as a perk of being a Councillor, but rather as an unfair advantage when it came to her standing as a firefighter, one of them, and yet another slight to the Chain of Command within the Fire Department. The behaviour was inconsistent for someone who never expressed any other desire than to be treated like "one of the boys?. At this same meeting, the Chief asked Councillor Seymour why she had voted against accepting the list of members who had completed the minimum standards training. According to Council minutes, Councillor Sheppard answered the question, telling the Chief that he could not support the list in its entirety as there were a couple of names that were questionable as to being active in the Department, or had not been there long enough to do the testing. That answer was thought to be rather unconvincing in itself. As already stated, training had been maintained throughout the summer to bring the recruits up to standard, and since none ofthe Councillors had any first hand knowledge of what had been accomplished, the apprehension level was upped a notch as they wondered what was going on now. As far as the reasoning that two of the recruits were no longer with the Department, that was also viewed as shallow, since that had nothing to do with the fact that they had passed the standard, and, had they returned, or even applied to another Department, that phase of the process would have been completed. Following his attendance at this meeting, the privileged session of November as noted at page 12, took place, followed by the public meeting of November 16th when Councillor Seymour presented her list of allegations and subsequent motions for suspension/dismissal of Chief Hiscock. On December 7th, the matter of the Fire Department was again raised in Council, and at this point it was obvious that Council was struggling to find a way to deal with the growing level of discontent within the community. in the face of allegations of Harassment and Harassment in General?, coming from a member of the Fire Department, the citizens of Spaniard?s Bay were alarmed and wanted to know whether or not there was any basis to the allegations. -23- Members of the Fire Department claimed to have no knowledge of occurrences of Harassment and Harassment in General? within their Department, and wanted in inquiry, investigation, or review of some sort in order to either confirm the complaints and deal with actual incidents, or else put an end to the innuendo. in this meeting, a motion by Councillor Dominix, seconded by Councillor Seymour, that a representative from Fire and Emergency Services, be invited to meet with Council, was carried. On the heels of that motion, a second motion, by Deputy Mayor Brazil, seconded by Councillor Jewer, that the Town engage the services of the Human Resources Consulting Firm of Robertson Surrette to conduct the review of the Fire Department, was carried. Yet a third motion, moved by Councillor Dominix, seconded by Councillor Seymour, that Council invite a representative from Municipal Affairs to meet with Council to conduct a question and answer session, was also carried. Curiously, Councillor Seymour advised that she was against the second motion, the one to conduct a review of the Department, chacterizing it as waste of money?. This after seconding Councillor Dominix? motion of November 16th, that Council to take immediate action to rte-evaluate and re-structure the Town?s Fire Department?. Curious not only since discussion surrounding Councillor Dominix? motion took place amid Councillor Seymour?s allegations, but curious as well in that an investigation validating her allegations should have prompted Council to the right thing?, which was, after all, the reasons for the motions of that meeting in the first place it? -24- E. January 2015 During the final month of 2015 and into January of 2016, the rumor mill continued unabated. Whatever solace may have been anticipated with the December 7th decision to have Robertson, Surrette conduct an enquiry was dashed a week or so later when Council, in a hastily called Special Meeting, abruptly reversed their earlier decision, a day or two before the enquiry was about to begin. At Council?s meeting of January 19th, a number of Firefighters were in attendance. In addition to the still unresolved rumor mill concerning the Fire Department, word was circulating that Council Liaison Sheri Collins, who was well thought of by Firefighters, was-being stymied and had, allegedly, been verbally attacked in Council when speaking up in their best interests. Following are quotes, non? verbatim, taken from investigator?s notes of interview content: It was like the Department was getting shafted. They were having meetings behind the Chiefs back. Our liaison had no say. She was being cut off?. No one asked for our side. We figured Council would meet with us to get to the bottom of it. Work was being done in the background but the Fire Department was never given a chance to give their story. No input. Chief Hiscock wanted to attend when they were discussing Fire Department business? Vic wanted a representative from the Fire Department at Council meetings. If we weren?t on the agenda, couldn?t speak. Fifteen firefighters could be there and couldn?t speak, but Brenda could speak on her own behalf. She was playing both sides of the fence?. personally, it was a vendetta against Vic. She tried three or four ways to get rid of Vic. A recruit damaged a garage door and she tried to blame it on Vic. Councillors even saying it was Vic?s fault a worker was injured fixing the door. Another time Vic got blamed for taking a medical call and he wasn?t even there. She couldn?t get any headway with the Town so she took to the media?. We were all getting dragged through the dirt. The video was no fault of ours and we had done nothing wrong. There was talk around town, word about the video, and people were being given the impression that we sit around the Fire Hall on a Thursday night and drink beer and watch porn?. -2 5- any issues with the Fire Department brought up at Council we would like to have a representative from the Executive there. That wasn?t being done. We would hear from the public that we were being downgraded and put down in Council. People would call and say that Councillors and others were at Breaktime Coffee in Bay Roberts talking loud, bringing up the Chief?s name. One time a call from someone in Search and Rescue in Bay Roberts telling the Chief they would force him out he didn?t get out?. if there were complaints of sexual harassment, get it sorted out. A Councillor said to my Wife that we ?sexually harassed and abused that woman?. want to know what I done. No one looked into it and it was never dealt with in Council?. We were aware of the Compass articles from previous years. I was well aware of Brenda?s reputation as a racket starter and knew she was pretty vocal. In the Fire Department there is a Chain of Command, and you don?t bypass your Chain of Command. It is disrespectful. We knew she was going over the Chief and ranking officers and taking stu? back to the Town Hall. It all came out before it could be dealt with within the Fire Department?. We were getting word from others in the community that Council was discussing Fire Department business. Victor got to go. Victor no good. Got to go. This from other people in the community, people who attended meetings. People told us being bad mouthed by Council, mostly Brenda, so we started to go to meetings. We had one call. Everybody was working. We got to go. Can?t wait around. One young fellow damaged the door. Victor got blamed for that. The young fellow missed protocol but Victor was always stressing protocol. It was an accident and Vic wasn?t even there. Vic got blamed. That was one reason she wanted him out but she never brought it up at a Fire Department meeting. Brought it up at a Council meeting. Another incident Victor got blamed for was going on a medical call. The Fire Department was called after a man had a heart attack in the woods. We knew we weren?t supposed to take medical calls, but someone needed help. Vic got blamed for that, and it wasn?t even his call. Why not go on a call like that? Why blame Victor?? stuff was being brought up about the Fire Department. Victor thought he had an agreement that if Council was dealing with Fire Department business he would be invited to the meeting. We would be left in the dark. We?d hear there?s a Council meeting tonight and they are planning on getting rid of Victor. We attended the meeting where Seymour made the motion. It was all planned because others had their hands up to vote before she finished. It seemed like they had a plan then a plan She had it out for Victor. They voted to dismiss, then voted to suspend, quick seconding, no reasons given. We were sitting in awe of what was going on. They would have privileged meetings and we?d hear through the grapevine that they were talking about Fire Department business?. -26- Council would not meet with us. They never came to hear our story. That should have been done long ago?. if there were issues with the Fire Department, meet us behind closed doors. That did not happen. We would welcome an inquiry if we were not doing right. They contacted an H. R. firm but the inquiry never happened. They had 10 issues on the list in the November meeting. Ridiculous, there are no set rules. Everyone does traffic, depending on when you arrive. Experienced people attack the fire?. Council allowed Brenda to run with this. We were thrown to the wind as scapegoats with no support from Council. They were going to have a P. R. firm to investigate but nothing happened. The investigation should have been done last Fall. They should have dealt with the Fire Department in a more professional way. The sexual harassment card was played as a way to cover her own incompetence?. That was the atmosphere, then, when Council met on January 19th. At the end of that meeting, as is customary, Councillors were given the opportunity to speak, and Councillor Collins requested that she be allowed to speak last. When her turn came, Councillor Collins read from a prepared statement, formally announcing her resignation. At that point, all of the frustration, tension, and angst which had built in the past few months reached its boiling point, and when one firefighter handed in his pager in support of their Liaison, many of the others followed suit. The Mass Resignation, the reasons for it, and the subsequent fallout, is dealt with in detail in the following section of this report. -27- SECTION 4 - ISSUES DISCUSSION A. The Mass Resignation One of the great misconceptions of the resignations oflanuary 19th was the actual reason why they occurred. The mainstream media as early as January 21St was incorrectly reporting on that particular aspect of the story, certainly not the last time misinformation was fed to the public. The CBC news website of that date included the statement that It?s become clear that the mass resignations were a show of support for the Chief?. Had anyone bothered to do even a modicum of verification, they would have realized that the Chief was not even at the meeting when the resignations started, and he was actually one of the last to hand in his pager. Let us trace the actual timeline of events leading up to January 19th, and let us also remember that the level of frustration within the Department was palpable in the months leading up to this date. There had been ?general? allegations of harassment, including sexual harassment made, and they felt that the ?general? nature of the allegations included everyone, a situation which they were at a loss to explain. Their Chief, in their view, had been unjustly criticized. They felt abandoned by Council, and now, as they watched proceedings unfold during this meeting, they witnessed their Liaison, Councillor Sheri Collins, tender her resignation, citing a litany of concerns with the way the Department had been managed by Council. Many ofthose issues have already been mentioned, however, it is worth noting her concerns, stated publically, in view of the action which followed. As quoted by Councillor Collins: In my opinion, the Fire Dept. has been under constant attack for the past several months. It seems that issues have been constantly brought forward to council without informing the Dept. The proper Chain of Command is not being followed. I believe the Fire Dept. should have an opportunity to address issues and concerns before being brought forward in a public forum. It seems to me that Council is working against our Volunteer Fire Dept. rather than working with our Dept.? Meetings pertaining to the Spaniard?s Bay Volunteer Fire Dept. have taken place without giving the Dept. an opportunity to provide representation?. do not agree with delaying the report pertaining to the Fire Dept. I believe the members of our Volunteer Fire Dept. need to have a voice and an opportunity to address the issues that have been brought forward regarding the Dept. -23- I feel it is unfair for Council to hear from one member of the department while muzzling the others.? With regard to the 2016 budget, lsubmitted a letter on behalf of our Fire Dept. requesting an increase of $1100 to its operating grant to aid in the subscription of the ?Who?s Responding? system. However, this 51100 increase was not included in the budget; however, there was an allotment of $116,200 for expenses related to Municipal Enforcement. Council even saw fit to budget $500 to the Bay Arena Association?. Councillor Collins also made reference to being "verbally attacked on a personal level by a member of Council, to the point that reference was made to my children?. During the course of interviews, it was obvious that members of the Department held Ms. Collins in high esteem as a Liaison who always had their best interests at heart, and who would give her best effort on their behalf. Several of those who were in attendance remarked that, even now, as she tendered her resignation, Councillor Seymour, in their view, disrespected her by unnecessarily coughing and causing distraction. By this time as well, members honestly felt that their only option to get someone to take them seriously was resignation. Many of them felt that the level of shock from that action would prompt Council to at least talk to them. They believed that resignation was a temporary avenue; that they would be back once they had told their story and that the issues had been properly dealt with. As the meeting ended, according to Council an undetermined number of firefighters turned in pagers and keys and walked out of the meeting, effectively resigning en masse". Their timing could not have been worse! Councillor Collins, in the lead in to her resignation announcement, requested that she be allowed to speak last, at the conclusion of the meeting. All other Councillors had made their closing remarks, however, following Councillor Collins? announcement, Councillor Seymour made reference to a 2 1/2 hour interview she had given to the CBC earlier that day. As events 'unfolded the interview outlined details of the two allegations of sexual harassment, both of which will be discussed in detail in Section 4 of this report, Analysis and Findings. -29- Subject to these allegations the media, never averse to the makings of a story, imposed their own spin on events by suggesting that the resignations had come in the wake of the harassment allegations, notwithstanding that the CBC interview did not air until January 20th, the day _a__f_t_eLthe resignations. In fact, while the allegations of sexual harassment had been included in Councillor Seymour?s motion of November 16th, 2015, and local print media, The Compass, had - given it coverage in its news story of November 24?, it is interesting that neither the Provincial nor National media, print or otherwise, picked it up at that time. It would certainly appear that the resignations, coupled with the interview and its revelations alleging sexual misconduct provided the impetus for the media presumption of resignations related to allegations. There is, in fact, no evidence to support that presumption, and most of the Firefighters interviewed had no qualms in stating that their resignation was in support of Councillor Collins. Yet another rather spurious theory was advanced in a National Post article ofJanuary 215*, when it was suggested that, ?along with the departure of town councillor Sheri Collins, the fire department liason Rumors of renewed council action this week prompted the mass resignation?. The fact of the matter is that it was Council?s inaction, i.e. the cancellation of the Robertson Surrette review, referenced at p. 25, that had caused additional frustration and confusion. Rather than a cause for resignation, firefighters would have welcomed any action from a Council they viewed as both divided and paralyzed. While with the subject of the resignations, there was a narrow body of conspiracy theorists who would have others believe that the resignation had been orchestrated and that Councillor Collins was aware that members would follow her lead. This avenue was explored during my interviews, and there is no evidence to suggest anything other than a spontaneous decision as events unfolded. As mentioned, resignation had been discussed in general terms as a possible way to goad Council into at least starting a dialogue with them, but to infer that there was any co-ordinated purpose to resign on this night is simply so much sinister speculation. In fact, many of the firefighters who resigned were not at the meeting but were notified by pager of what was happening. -30- Chief Hiscock, who would presumably have been in the forefront of any systematic resignation, had left his own place of business and had gone to Tilton to conduct a house inspection for a resident who needed an oxygen line in order to bring his wife home from hospital. He was running late when he got the call on his pager and requested to be picked up and brought to the Town Hall. Consideration of available evidence would suggest that there was nothing outside of support for Councillor Collins which caused the mass resignations ofJanuary 19th. -31- B. The Culture As is the case with any organization, but particularly an organization structured along the lines of a hierarchy, or, if you will, quasi military, a certain culture invariably develops. Examples which come to mind are, of course, the Military and Police, and the Fire Services would certainly not be too far down the list, under that umbrella of cultural identity, where the membership is characterized by a shared set of values, goals, attitudes, and practices. There is no place in the Fire Services or any other organization for the presence of harassment, bullying, intimidation, or disrespectful behaviour toward any member, male or female. In the real world, however, in the cut and thrust of organizational debate and human interaction, comments are made which, although offensive, if pr0perly addressed and dealt with, can usually be resolved within the structure of the organization without the need to resort to outside intervention. Within a Fire Department as well, and the Spaniards Bay/Tilton Volunteer Fire Department was certainly no exception, is the all important Chain of Command, and part of the function of the Chain of Command is to afford members who may have complaints or concerns a mechanism to voice complaints, with the expectation that they will be fairly heard and resolved. In his 2010 review, Gerald Hiscock, a veteran firefighter and administrator, stated the importance of the Chain of Command as it relates to the Fire Service. To quote from Mr. Hiscock?s comments at Appendix of his report, any firefighter who has a complaint or concern should, before {emphasis Mr. Hiscock) you avail of the chain of command, talk to a person whom you know to be experienced and knowledgeable to determine if your concern is legitimate. If you feel it is legitimate, go to your Chief and discuss your problem. Always remain professional and respectful with the people with whom you talk. if unable to work out the Contact the Town often the Chief and Town Manager can resolve any the problem cannot be resolved at these two levels, Council itself must come into When Chain of Command is bypassed, future problems will be created - for example, rumors which can adversely affect morale? (emphasis mine). Clearly, within the culture of the Fire Services generally, there is an expectation that grievances of any description be dealt with and resolved at the lowest possible level, that starting with the respondent to the accusation giving rise to the complaint. To resort to any other mechanism would be, and, in this case, was, viewed by the membership as breaches of both matters of trust and confidence, and a violation of the Chain of Command. -32- It is reasonable to conclude, then, that once dealt with, and acknowledged by the complainant that it has been resolved satisfactorily, that'the organization can put it behind and move on, with the benefit of a lesson learned. As well, the Sexual Harassment Policy for the Town of Spaniard?s Bay, adopted through a motion of Council on August 22nd, 2005, states, in part, that are encouraged to speak up ifsomeone behaves in a way that offends, humiliates, or degrades them. Tell the person responsible the behaviour is inappropriate. If the behaviour continues report the matter to a manager or, where appropriate, file a formal complaint?. With reference to the particular culture which had evolved within the operation of the Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Department, the evidence is clear in its conclusion that Victor Hiscock, first of all, promoted a culture based on equality and openness. As we shall see in the discussion on Gender Bias, Chief Hiscock was a proponent not only of gender equality, but of the right of each and every member of his Department to express their opinion and voice their concerns, as evidenced by his conclusion of regular meetings to go around the table, giving each firefighter the opportunity to raise and debate a particular issue. Woven into the culture as well was a policy of recognition. There is evidence that the Chief recognized individual accomplishments and achievements by recognizing and congratulating the recipient at the same meetings. In fact, the minutes show him recognizing FF Seymour on her level of accomplishment at the Fire School, as well as congratulations to both her and her husband relating to a matter outside the sphere of firefighting, that being their intervention into an attempted break and enter at a local business. Debriefings formed an important component of the culture of improvement within the Department, as it was normal procedure, following an emergency call, to debrief by analyzing what went wrong, what worked, and how service could be improved. One Firefighter referred to these gatherings as ?toolbox sessions?, important not only to the sharing of ideas, but also to the critique of individual and team performance. Training becomes important to the culture as well, since the efficiency, effectiveness, self?confidence, and public confidence in the organization directly relates to its ability to do the job when called upon, and there is no evidence that either the abilities or the performance of this Department were matters of concern. And, of course, the banter, thejokes, the barbs, the occasional reminder learned from mistakes to ?not take yourself too seriously?, all went to make up the culture in evidence in the Department. -33- Another,lthough perhaps not well understood component of an emergency service is what is referred to as the ?black humor? or ?gallows humor? inherent in any organization in which individuals find themselves as front line personnel to any degree of human tragedy and misery. Often this humor manifests itself in the form of a coping mechanism, lest we forget that these individuals were and are volunteers, individuals who put themselves out there in the cause of service to individuals and the betterment of their communities. "There was no bullying but there was lots of carrying on. You have to trust your buddies, and we did a good job. No one did anything to her. No one wanted any trouble, and Brenda was treated the same as everyone else. She wanted to be treated like everyone else. Everyone made fun of everyone else. If we got a call in the middle of the night, everyone arrived in pyjamas, shorts, some had no socks. Di??erent color pyjamas, and everyone had a laugh, a bit of camaraderie when we got back. No one was ever hurt by it?. Brenda was the best kind, working with us. Whatever happened, ldon?t know?. There was no harassment, no bullying. There was joking back and forth. She said staff carrying on. She kicked a fellow in the arse one night, between the legs. She was one of the boys, sat at the bar with us. No one knew what was coming. The night after the resignations, the sexual assault charges were on the evening news?. ?We had one firefighter who was afraid of spiders. We got a bunch of spiders one night and put them in his boots. There was always banter and joking, the boys would be always carrying on. There was never anything directed towards Brenda?. Brenda would always carry on and joke. There was never anything pointed towards her . Everybody fit in. There were differences of opinion but there was nothing in the way of harassment. We would all laugh and carry on. Both Brenda and Martin sat down after meetings. I was shocked when I heard it?. So what, you may reasonably ask, is the purpose of this discussion? It is to neither to praise nor condemn the culture inherent either in Fire Services generally orthe Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Volunteer Fire Department in particular. Nor is it to suggest that the culture cannot be improved upon. -34- It is merely to acknowledge, whatever the general public?s opinion of it, that it exists, and in the context of this Department, there is no evidence that any Firefighter took offence to comments made either in general conversation, Department meetings, or debriefing sessions. There is, of course, one incident to which FF Seymour took great exception, and that will be discussed in detail further along, under the Analysis and Findings section of this report. There is evidence that the culture of this Department, once the sole domain of men, began its adaption to the inclusion of females in 2008, an issue which will be explored more fully in the Gender Bias discussion. Following her 2011 re?instatement, there was an element of friction as some members felt that the recommendation to re-instate was wrong, but bear in mind that she had been initially accepted by majority vote ofthe membership, and her dismissal was based on instances of breaches of the Chain of Command rather than any issues of Gender. There is no evidence to suggest that, for their part, the male element of the Department did not accept FF Seymour into the culture, and there is evidence that not only was she accepted, but that she in fact insisted on not being treated as anything but "one of the boys?, a statement which she was heard to make on more than one occasion. Finally, in spite of all the emphasis on the importance of Chain of Command within the Fire Service, and specific guidelines within the Town?s Policy, there is no evidence that FF Seymour ever took, with the exception of one occasion, complaints of harassment or improper conduct, verbal or otherwise, through the proper Chain of Command within the Department. C. The Process Lest there be any doubt as to the end game, probably started prior to September 28th, but ramped up on that date with the rejection of the list of Firefighters recommended as having completed Minimum Standards Training, was nothing short of the removal of Victor Hiscock as Fire Chief. The Department body was at that time effectively put on notice that something was afoot, and that something was being fed through the rumor mill, through innuendo, through the not so guarded conversations, and any other means available to spread the word. Minutes of both Fire Department and Council show that, on at least two occasions, Ms. Seymour was asked why she had voted against the list of names. At the Council meeting ofOctober 19th, as mentioned, Councillor Sheppard answered the question by stating that there were a couple of names on the list that were questionable as to being active in the Department or had not been there long enough to be able to do the testing. At the Fire Department meeting of November 19th, at least two Firefighters asked the same question, and the answer was that there had been no list of qualifications or certifications submitted with each name, and that it would take months to complete minimum standards. Minimum Standards will be discussed fully in the Issues Discussion referencing Training in the Analysis and Findings Section of this report. For the purposes of this discussion, we can safely conclude that neither answer provided a satisfactory assurance to the suspicion that the rejection was part of something a little more sinister. As has already been outlined, the Municipalities Act is quite specific to the process to be followed when seeking the suspension or removal of a Department Head. What the Act does not address is, what then? Both common courtesy and The Principles of Natural Justice demand that "Any person must be permitted to both fully present their case and to challenge the case against them?. A copy of the Principles of Natural Justice is attached as Appendix In the absence of a formal complaint or grievance process, civility would appear to dictate that any complaint against the Chief should have been presented, in writing, giving proper notice, in a manner respectful both of the dignity of Council as well as the office of Fire Chief. -35- Such complaints should have contained sufficient documentation and detail as to permit the Respondent (In this case, the Chief), to formulate a full written reply. Having received all documentation, any number of processes could have been initiated to deal with the matter. A laundry list of complaints and allegations in support of suspension and/or dismissal, the Council meeting of November 16th, with no notification as required by the Act, denial of representation, no opportunity for measured response and presented at a public meeting was, quite frankly, disrespectful not only to the Chief but to procedural fairness and propriety of Council as a whole. The privileged meeting of November 2nd was a similar fiasco of process, since it began with the Chief being denied his right to representation (the presence of his Deputy Chief), and ended with an ultimatum for Council to ?do the right thing?. Although the ?right thing? was never stated at that time, it became clear on the 16th, with the motion for dismissal, and, failing that, suspension. Had that process been carried through in the manner proposed, it would have itself created its own legal issue in terms of violation of existing legislation, not to mention denial of due process and legal rights. Personally, there is one aspect of this entire process that i find quite distasteful, and that is the spectacle of a Fire Chief, the Head of a Department, being unable to speak either on his own or his agencies behalf, simply because he was not on the ?agenda? for a particular meeting. Added to that was the insult of having to listen to an ordinary firefighter?s opinion of matters pertaining to his Department, again with no opportunity to correct, explain, or challenge. The circumstance would be akin to a CEO being present at a Board meeting and unable to speak with a junior clerk given the privilege of speaking on behalf of the company, or, more to the point, a Mayor attending a Fire Department meeting and being unable to speak, while a firefighter, who also happened to be a Councillor, speaking on matters pertaining to Council. The disrespect is all the more striking since there is evidence that, on occasion, individuals not on the agenda have been afforded the privilege of speaking. it is the view of a significant body of those interviewed that this whole campaign was nothing more than a personal vendetta dating back several years, and we will never know whether a carefully organized, properly documented, and legally presented motion and debate would have produced the end game result. We do know, however, that the end game objective was realized. I am not at all convinced that the result even came close to justifying the process which got it there. .. 37- D. Gender Bias Some ofthe media coverage, and certainly much ofthe public perception, based on that same media coverage, is that gender bias was a factor in FF Seymour not being elected to an executive position within the Department. That particular issue will be dealt with in the "Analysis and Findings?, Section 5, of this report, and will be further pursued in Section 6, Promotion (or not). As early as 2008, this issue was raised, and while I realize that i am again stepping well outside my Terms of Reference for the purpose of this report, this issue is of such significance not only to the Spaniards Bay/Tilton Fire Department, but to the Town of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton that it has to be put to rest, once and for all. In his 2010 study, Gerald Hiscock addressed this issue. At page 4 of his report, he The Town and the Fire Department, just a short few months ago, were embroiled in a very public issi regarding another female firefighter and the question of ?gender bias?. This alone should have raised a red flag at the time Ms. Seymour, a second female firefighter and Council colleague, asked Council to investigate her suspension and dismissal from the SBFD. Having had that initial experience, Council still chose to defer to The Act and allow the Fire Chief and his Department to deal with yet another female firefighter who had brought forth concerns. Although I have found absolutely NO INDICATION 0F GENDER BIAS in this matter, I would argue that after the original experience the Council had with the question of gender equality, it would have been far more prudent to examine the question more closely as per lVls. Seymour?s request?. (All emphasises Mr. Hiscock?s). As emphasized by Mr. Hiscock, he found no indication of gender bias in FF Seymour?s suspension and subsequent dismissal. Disciplinary action taken at the time was related to issues surrounding breaches of the Chain of Command, and her reinstatement was based on flaws surrounding the process rather than any flaws in the reasoning. Although gender was thought to have been a factor when the first female fighter left, that issue was NEVER a consideration, and while certain interests tried to make it a gender issue, the fact ofthe matter is that she left for reasons totally unrelated to gender. During my interview with Victor Hiscock, he was quite candid in his observation that, in the early days of his Administration, there was certainly resistance to the inclusion of female firefighters into a previously male exclusive domain. At the Executive level, however, there is strong evidence that both Chief Hiscock and his Assistant Chief at the time, current Fire Chief Curt Roberts, were proponents of gender equality within the Department. Clearly, by 2010 that resistance had resolved itself, largely through the leadership at the top of the Chain, and there is no evidence of bias, systemic or otherwise, in the Department from 2011 to the current day. While gender is referred to in general terms in media reporting, there is no evidence brought forward from that source to support the speculation and, quite frankly, malicious innuendo of Gender Bias within the Department. On this issue, the remarks and observations of Council Liaison Sherri Collins are was there for more than two years and I received nothing but respect from those men?. Not only was nothing said or done to her, she observed nothing of an offensive nature being said or done to anyone else. As an aside, and a suggestion of a lack of gender bias and, in fact, gender support, Firefighters interviewed stated that their resignation of January 19th was in support of their female liaison. -39- E. Conflict of Interest A recurring theme throughout this investigation has been the notion that, because Brenda Seymour was a Councillor, she was in a Conflict of Interest when it came to discussing Fire Department business at Council meetings; conversely, that her role at Department meetings should have been equal to that of other firefighters, i.e. respect for the Chain of Command and the role of Council Liaison. In the eyes of the Department, it was the role oftheir Liaison to relay Fire Department issues to Council as well as to relay Council concerns and directives back to them through the Liaison, unless, of course, such matters were filtered directly through the Chief. As we have seen, though, the Chief was being being left completely out of the loop, and word was getting back to the membership that their Liaison was being similarly disrespected. Again, referring back to Gerald Hiscock?s comments concerning future problems when the Chain of Command is breached, e.g. rumors which can adversely affect morale?, it appears that this is precisely what the Department was facing in late 2015/early 2016, when Department business was being brought to Council outside of the Chain of Command. If anyone in Council Chambers was authorized to speak on behalf of the Fire Department, it should have been Council Liaison. In his report, Gerald Hiscock, at page 25, Recommendation No. 3, The person appointed by Council to be it?s ?liaison? with the Fire Department plays a very important role in keeping the lines of communication open between the two bodies. He/she must maintain of information between the Fire Service and the town?s elected officials is pivotal to the optimum functionina of any Fire Department. The liaison?s role isI therefore, vital. (Emphases Mr. Hiscock?s). While Ms. Seymour was a member of Council at the time of Mr. Hiscock?s study, when the role of Liaison was described as ?vital?, there is evidence that FF Seymour adopted an antagonistic attitude towards the Liaison, Councillor Collins, telling her during a Fire Department meeting that she shouldn?t be allowed to speak, even after the Chief, exercising his policy of equality, had given Councillor Collins the floor. I would state further that Council Liason, along with being ?vital? is actually an important element in the Chain of Command, acting on behalf of the Department, and by extension the Chief, on matters of mutual interest and/or concern to both. -40- In effect, what was created was a circumstance in which an ordinary firefighter, with a history of disrespect towards the Chain of Command, was disrespectful to Council Liaison, that ?vital link?, by telling her that she shouldn?t speak. Is it any wonder, then, that rumors adversely affecting morale were rampant throughout the community? What, then, is Conflict of interest? The Municipalities Act, defines it thus: 207. (1) A councillor shall not vote on or speak to a matter before the council or a committee of the council where the councillor has a monetary interest in the matter distinct from an interest arising from his or her function as a councillor; the councillor has a monetary interest directly or indirectly in the matter; a relative of the councillor has a monetary interest in the matter; or the councillor is an officer, employee or agent of an incorporated or unincorporated company, or other association of persons, that has a monetary interest in the matter. (2) For the purpose of subsection (1) a relative of a councillor means a father, mother, spouse, cohabiting partner, sister, brother, child, step-child, ward, mother?in?law, sister?in-law, or brother-in?law of the councillor. (3) For the purpose of sub-section (2) ?cohabiting partner? means a person with whom a councillor is living in a conjugal relationship outside marriage; and ?spouse? means a person to whom a councillor is married, unless the person and the councillor have made a separation agreement on their support obligations and family property have been dealt with by court order. (4) in order for an interest to be considered as one falling within the prohibition set out in sub-section (1) it shall be an interest distinct from an interest held in common with the other citizens or classes of citizens of the municipality. In my View, that is a pathetically narrow sampling of what Conflict of interest entails, one that does not even begin to address the many ways in which Conflict of Interest concerns could apply in the matter of elected officials. -41- While the Municipalities Act offers its own interpretation of Conflict of Interest, it has been defined elsewhere as a situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the persons self?interest and professional public interest. Business Ethics defines Conflict of Interest as a situation in which a person has a private or personal interest sufficient to appear to influence the objective exercise of his or her official duties as, say, a public official. an employee, or a professional?. Mirriam Webster defines it as a conflict between competing duties?. Wikipedia offers the following interpretation a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests. financial or otherwise. one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation or decision making of that individual or organization. Mirriam Webster?s Deluxe Dictionary, Tenth Collegiate a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust?. Whether we accept it or not, or like it or not, persons in authority, i.e. police, firefighters, judges, public service employees, and public office holders at any level are held to higher standards of behaviour and conduct on any number of levels, including Conflict of Interest. Caution must not only be taken, but must be seen to be taken, in order to avoid all perception of conflict, whether that be real, apparent, potential, or imagined. The Values and Ethics Code for the public service sets forth the values and ethics of public service ?Acting at all times in such a way as to uphold the public trust?. As for legal definition and interpretation the following was provided in the case of Threader v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] 1 F.C. 41 at p.57 in determination of whether a Conflict of Interest exists: Would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, think it more likely than not that the public servant, whether consciously or unconsciously, will be influenced in the performance of his official duties by considerations having to do with his personal interests?. The presence of a Conflict of Interest has nothing to do with the issue of impropriety. A conflict exists if circumstances are reasonably believed to create a that a decision may be, influenced by other interests, not whether an individual is influenced by that interest. To avoid conflict, it is most important to avoid the appearance or perception of conflict. In Municipal circles, it is sometimes referred to as "perception of bias?. -42- The point is reinforced by a decision ofthe Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division in the matter of Crane v. Upper Island Cove (Town) 1999 N.S. No. 163 Wells,J para 38, where Mr. Justice Wells Though the conflict of interest was minimal and unintended, nevertheless the perception of it by others was very real, and such perceptions, when allowed to take root, are by their very nature corrosive and destructive to public confidence in municipal government?. The Business Dictionary defines Conflict of Interest as ?a situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the persons self-interest and public interest?. Clearly, Councillor Seymour?s interest was the removal of Victor Hiscock as Chief. Based on the evidence presented to me, I remain unconvinced that there was an overriding public interest in that objective. Whatever her reason for wanting him replaced, there is no evidence to suggest that the Department would have fared better under any other leadership, and that observation is in no way meant to disparage the current Chief, Curt Roberts. None of the Firefighters interviewed displayed even the slightest concern with Victor Hiscock?s leadership. He was, in fact, viewed as an exceptional on site commander, well respected within the community, and totally dedicated to the best interests of the Fire Department. As far back as 2010, Gerald Hiscock described the Chief as ?very popular with the rank and file in the 5. B. Fire a tireless worker, both in his efforts to earn a living for his family and in his efforts to serve his community to the best of his ability as Fire Dedication and hard work ?in the trenches? is unquestionable. Indeed it is commendable?. It must be noted that, when Gerald Hiscock made these comments, Victor Hiscock had been in the position of Fire Chief for less than 2 years, and over the ensuing years, while there is nothing to suggest that any of his positive attributes and skills had diminished, there is much evidence to suggest that he had indeed grown into the role, supported by the fact of unwavering support from the membership during subsequent Department elections. Among the interviewees, the most common questions asked when discussing the issue of Conflict of Interest: How could an individual have a vote on issues within the Fire Department, then see it brought back to Council and vote on it there as well? How could a Councillor vote on funding for the Fire Department, then be in a position to take advantage of that funding as a Firefighter, and not see that as a monetary benefit? How can someone have the inside swap in both places and not be in a Conflict of Interest? -43- We always asked why Brenda was not in a Conflict of Interest. The information that was getting back to Council had to be brought back from our meetings. I know it was financial in the Municipalities Act, but in a conflict, you could play both sides, and do good or harm to either side. You have to make a decision on that. How do you juggle that? How can you ask for money for a convention and be part of the decision? You?re still a firefighter. Council provides money for the convention and your partner automatically goes. How can that not be a benefit? Council is paying the bills. It?s not equal. It?s not fair. It don?t sound right. The perception is there?. (Emphasis mine). Finally, Ms. Seymour herself appears to have realized that Conflict of Interest does exist outside the narrow parameters as outlined in the Municipalities Act. in early November of 2015 she maintained (at least unofficially) absence at the privileged meeting in which Chief Hiscock was questioned. While she did not officially declare conflict, she was in the building, and there is no evidence of any other reason not to attend the meeting aside from Conflict of Interest. Following the December 7th motion to engage Robertson, Surrette, Councillor Seymour at first agreed to take part in the process, then declined, citing Conflict of Interest concerns. Post January 19th, when efforts had started to re-organize the Department, Councillor Seymour, as per Council minutes of February 4th, 2016, noting that she would be working side by side with those selected, removed herself from being part of the selection process, a curious decision in itself, since on September 28th, 2015, she voted against some of those with whom she eventually worked side by side with. And, in September of 2016, she declined an invitation to participate in this process because of a Conflict of interest. Neither of these situations satisfies the definition of Conflict of Interest as contained in the Municipalities Act. -44- F. Cou_nci ?and they could have nipped it in the bad?. (1. How? A. She brought forward all this, and had all those Councillors on her side. They know what she?s like. And she made allegations that turned out to be false. And they could have dealt with the issue first hand and never seen a resignation. They could have, for one, stepped up to the plate and not let happen what happened to Sheri Collins. But they didn?t do nothing about it. lmean, the Council turned their eyes to it and was afraid to deal with Ms. Seymour. And she also had a couple of Councillors in her back pocket, so they were going to be her puppets anyway. They were going to say what she said. Between her and Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Dominix, they were going to kibosh Victor. Got a personal vendetta out for him. Don?t like him. We had Sheri that supported us. We had a couple that we though supported us, but we found out through the wash that they didn?t support us. There was also one on the fence. We didn?t know which way he was going to fall. But we know now. Council could have dealt with the issue, never let it get this far, and everything would have been running down there hunky dory?. ?it was total frustration with Council. They wouldn?t listen to the Fire Department. They listened to one person tal An overriding theme throughout the interviews was the role of Council and how it could have handled the growing controversy preceding the events ofJanuary 19th. Interviewees felt that Council had erred in allowing one Councillor to run with what they term as ?false allegations? of sexual harassment within the Department, and they were quite open to any sort of independent investigation that would shed light upon exactly what FF Seymour was alleging. While Ms. Seymour?s re-installation as a Councillor would appearto have provided the impetus for her allegations of November, in the interest of historical perspective, it is helpful, I believe, to return once again to Gerald Hiscock?s 2010 report. -45- Mr. Hiscock made four recommendations at the conclusion of his report. Actually, he made four recommendations and issued one directive; that Brenda Seymour be re- instated as a member of the Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Volunteer Fire Department. Reference has already been made to the fact that, once Ms. Seymour had been re- instated, none of his recommendations appear to have been given serious consider? ation,- if they were, they were certainly given short shrift since not one of them was implemented. As noted in the previous issues Discussion, Chief Hiscock had been in the position for less than 2 years when the controversy surrounding FF Seymour?s alleged penchant of disrespect for the Chain of Command began. Mr. Hiscock?s report was submitted to Council on December 15th, 2010, and at a Fire Department meeting on January 27th, 2011, Chief Hiscock enquired about the study. Although minutes at the time are incomplete, it appears that there was some discussion about it, with the Chief making the comment that they would not be having their annual meeting until Council got back to them concerning issues covered in the study. Clearly, Victor Hiscock was awaiting directions from Council before scheduling the Fire Department?s annual meeting. One of the items of business to be taken care of at that time would be the election of its Executive, including Chief. Obviously, if Council were to follow through on Mr. Hiscock?s recommendation, that the Town initiate a selection process to fill not only the Chief?s position, but the Deputy Chief as well, any Department election would be an exercise in futility. The timeline surrounding subsequent debate and motion in Council has already been documented, and on May 16th Councillor Seymour herself made the motion that Victor Hiscock continue as Chief, minus the process of advertising, application, interview, and selection as recommended by Gerald Hiscock. For his part, Victor Hiscock, having received no direction from Council, carried on with business as usual, with no official knowledge of the content of the report, obviously under the assumption that Council had no concerns with anything contained therein. Furthermore, the question needs to be asked of why Chief Hiscock was not provided with a copy of Gerald Hiscock?s report. Surely, a major inquiry into a critical component of the Town?s operation, containing helpful recommendations, should have been provided to its Department head, if only in the interests of lessons learned and future guidance, if not in the interests of common courtesy and respect. _45_ Council of the day had adopted a policy of not wanting to ?micromanage? the Fire Department, and left the exchange of information between the two entities in the hands of its Liaison to the Department, first of all Councillor Tony Dominix, and, from the Fall of 2013, Councillor Sheri Collins. Again, in the ensuing years pre?2015, Council had no complaints of consequence with either Chief Hiscock or the Fire Department; Council minutes contain the usual political rhetoric of thanks, compliments, and pleasure with reference to its operation. It is unfortunate that some of the allegations of November 16?, Le. inspections Which ?can be traced back several years?, actually to well before Victor Hiscock?s tenure as Chief, were not raised then; if they were "potentially severe life threatening situations? in 2015, were they not in 2011? That is not a reasonable question to ask, and leave hanging the inference that perhaps the timing was not right. I believe a reasonable explanation is that, just as Victor Hiscock was caught in a learning curve, so too were Councillors of the day, with neither party aware of regulations or possible ramifications. After all, Councillors, to a certain extent, are volunteers, just as is the Fire Chief, both entities doing the best they can, in large part simply following the direction and example of those who came before them. There is an irony, although I am not at all certain ofthe correct adjective to define it, in the fact that Council of 2011, having received Mr. Hiscock?s report, with its reference to ?limited administration experience? would confirm Victor Hiscock as Chief, contrary to the procedural recommendations of the report, and that Council of 2015 would level allegations of administrative shortcomings in the direction of Chief Hiscock, without having offered him the benefit of administrative training in the interim. Had Council attempted to deal with issues of Administration in any way, being that a simple discussion with the Chief, to the offer of help and/or training, complaints may have retained some legitimacy, but to ignore an identified weakness in 2010 and then use it as a cudgel in 2015 is, in my view, absurd. Even more than that, I am struck by the fact that while issues around training appeared to have been such a high priority with the faction of Council voicing discontent with the Chief, no one thought to offer him such training, suggest to him that such training may be beneficial to him, or even entertain the thought that training may benefit the Chief as well as other members of his Department. -47- Although Gerald Hiscock made mention of the fact that Victor Hiscock had inherited problems left over from previous Administrations?, there is no evidence that Council of the day ever asked what those problems were, whether they were still in evidence, what, if any, effort had been made to address them, or whether Victor Hiscock?s alleged admin? istrative shortcomings were being exacerbated by decisions of previous administrations. There was no mention of Gerald Hiscock?s recommendations after Brenda got back in the Fire Department. She was on Council at the time?. As noted earlier, by the Fall of 2015, tension and apprehension had reached the levels as outlined elsewhere in this report. in retrospect, Council could have dealt with the growing controversy in a more forceful manner, but Council was clearly divided on the issue of whether Victor Hiscock should remain as Chief, and the element of Council which wanted him removed was clearly not satisfied with the 4?3 decision of November 16th. In the eyes of Fire Department membership, there was no possibility of mounting a serious challenge to the Chief?s leadership from within the Department, the attempt in Council had failed, and the next phase of the campaign was to use the media. Although Councillor Seymour?s CBC interview was not aired until after the resignations ofJanuary 19th, she had done the interview, as stated in Council, earlier that day. In actual fact, in the view of the Department, Council had finally ,"done the right thing? in its decision of December 7th to have the allegations investigated. It is, indeed, unfortunate that that positive step was reversed, moving the whole controversy back to square one, and setting the stage for the events of January 19th. In my view, Council exacerbated an already onerous situation in not exercising its due diligence by listening to both sides of the matter, and if still unable to make an informed decision, by refraining from all comment pending the outcome of an independent investigation. In the view of Department membership, in the face of sexual harassment allegations, which, by the way, to many of them suggested sexual assault, failure to initiate an immediate investigation, including suspension of all potential complainants and respondents, pending results, amounted to all being ?tarred with the one brush?, and in the Court of public opinion, convicted and sentenced without trial. -43- G. The Apology ?On behalf of the Spaniard?s Bay Town Council, I apologize to Brenda Seymour for instances of sexual harassment which she has endured. We do not condone, not tolerate such behaviour?. Thus read the wording ofan apology issued by Mayor Tony Menchions in the January 26th, 2015 edition of The Compass newspaper, and if there was one episode which galvanized Firefighters any more than Council?s refusal to meet with them, it was the apology, issued within a week of the allegations being made, and still having heard only one side of the story. Aside from the fact that, within days, ?allegations ofsexual harassment? had morphed into "instances of sexual ha rassment?, the general feeling within the Department was that, in the words of more than one firefighter, they had been, ?thrown under the bus? by their Council, and while there were attempts by at least two Firefighters to try and create some perspective by telling some of the other side, most felt that the media had made up its mind and would turn anything they tried to say against them. 'The issue of an apology was discussed in a privileged meeting of Council, a discussion in which, incredibly, Councillor Seymour took part. For his part, the Mayor was placed in an untenable situation; whether or not he agreed with the apology, he was duty bound by Section 21.(2) of the Municipalities Act, i.e. ?The Mayor is subject to the direction and control of the town council and shall abide by decisions of the town council?. Aside from the fact that the apology was issued on the basis of allegations only, not to mention that it was issued on the basis of hearing only one side of the story, there was some indignation expressed that there was an apology issued at all, since they felt they had done nothing to warrant having an apology issued for at all. -49- H. The Handshake (or not) One ofthe more bizzare incidents raised and discussed during these interviews was an incident which occurred during the evening of October 8th, 2015 during the Fire Department?s Open House, held in conjunction with Fire Prevention Week. The Special Events Committee, not a Committee of Council, although there were several councillors on the committee, chose this occasion to present the Fire Department with a donation in appreciation of non-fire related assistance done during the past year. Most of the Fire Department, including Firefighter Seymour, were in full dress uniform for the evening, and when the donation was made, Firefighters went around the committee shaking hands, ostensibly to thank them for the donation. As Assistant Fire Chief Randy Davis was shaking hands, Ms. Seymour put out her hand to congratulate the Department, in her own just congratulating the Department as a Councillor?. The A/Chief thought this odd, feeling that, as a Firefighter, Seymour should be thanking the Committee, not congratulating him. Long story short, Davis refused to shake her hand. There is no evidence that anyone took the refusal as a serious or disrespectful occurrence. There is evidence that it was said in a half joking manner and no evidence that it was done in a way to cause embarrassment. Later in the evening, after it had been brought to his attention that it had, he made two attempts to apologize to her and was rebuffed each time. The next day, in an email to the Town Manager, FF Seymour expressed the belief that ?this very public display? of disrespect and ridicule towards an elected official is absolutely unacceptable. This was not only coming from a paid employee, but the 2? ranking Officer in the Fire Department, with our Town name clearly displayed on his shoulders. He was as much representing our integrity last evening as was. This behavior cannot be accepted, and must be clearly indicated before it elevates and spreads to others?. Ironically, given the level of disrespect being shown to the Chief at the time, ?this very public display? of disrespect and ridicule towards an elected o??icial is absolutely This behaviour cannot be accepted?, probably encapsulates what members of the Fire Department in general, and Victor Hiscock in particular, were struggling with. She concluded her comments with the don?t wish to have a personal apology from Randy Davis, but I would accept it if he would express that his actions were ?inappropriate? at the very next regular Fire Department meeting?. -50- The Town Manager addressed the issue with the Assistant Chief, and provided him with a copy of the email, and at the very next Fire Department meeting on October 15th, when Assistant Chief Davis attempted to bring it up as FF Seymour had requested, was again repudiated, and not given a chance to either apologize or express any regret about his actions. Fire Department minutes of the meeting, concerning that particular incident, read as follows: There was a letter given to Tony Ryan about Randy. When Randy went to speak to her, she said, ?Not at this time. It is the wrong time and place?. She mumbled ?not unless you are going to apologize?. To some, FF Seymour should have been shaking hands with Committee members, in appreciation of their recognition of them, as were her fellow Firefighters. To some, it was evidence of her inability to separate the two roles. To some, it was simply another incident which should have, could have, been dealt with inside the Fire Department but which, again, showed disrespect for the Chain of Command by being taken outside. It is important to remember, though, that this incident occurred in the Fall of 2015, after the campaign to remove the Chief had started, and while there is opinion that Assistant Chief Davis should have just shaken hands and been done with it, the majority opinion was that the whole incident was simply inconsequential, trivial, misrepresented, foolish, and twisted into something that it was not, for a purpose totally unrelated to a handshake that was not. -51- I. The Effect These were not easy interviews. For many, including both current and former members of the Department, the wound is still fresh, the hurt is still palpable, and the sense of bewilderment and betrayal still runs deep: ?My wife wants me to have nothing to do with it now. I don?t need it. I was in Church one time and someone asked me how long I had been in the Fire Department. I told him how long, and said I had given the best of what I could give them. He said to me, right in Church, that all I had got in return was a boot in the nuts, for something I didn?t do. All the hard work was forgotten. In the time! was there, Ihelped everybody, fundraised, did what we could?. There was no consideration for our families. I wore my fireman?s coat to work one day, and someone came in and told me I was a disgrace. Told me I didn?t know how to treat women. A disgrace because of what? I have to tell you I miss it. I took my coat and burned it. I cried that day . Q. What do you think of your decision ofJanuary 19th? A. ?Do I miss it? Yes. I got a lot of good friends in that Department. I talk to them daily?. Q. Why didn?t you go back? A. ?We were very poorly treated. We were never apologized to. Imean there were accusations made. Sure none of that was ever proven. It was the heights of 8.5. We were never apologized to. We were treated like a bunch of criminals. Our Council belittled us. For all we done for year and years and years of service. We never so much as got a thank you, pat on the back, or nothing? 0.. What would you like to see happen now? A. ?Well, for starters, the person who made all these accusations got hyped up and praised in the media. And all the Councillors, you know, highly treated. And she made accusations that were totally false and she?s looked at as a super hero, because she?s a woman in a man dominated industry. Like Isay, accusations that were made that were totally false. In my opinion, if you can?t back up, if you?re going to make a sexual assault accusation that there are no grounds, can?t be proven, then you?re the culprit. Should be reprimanded somehow. She should have been made to step down from the Fire Department until this investigation was dealt with and see what would happen from there. The only other thing I?d like to see happen is what?s going to happen next election in this community?. Q. Would you go back to the Department? A. ?No, under no condition?. -52- Q. Under no condition? A. ?No. Something drastic would have to happen. For the amount of hours, the service I put into that Department, the things I done to make it a better place and to be treated like we were treated, it was the final straw for me. I mean, why are you going to keep doing something for someone that doesn?t appreciate anything?? (1. So there were things going on? A Not for long. Q. I mean in late 2015? A. ?Oh, yes. We?d hear of things the next day, and we?d be in the dark. ?We were brought up in Council last night?. No one knew. Vic wasn?t notified. If he couldn?t make it someone would make it on his behalf. And things were done here. Skulduggery. We were left in the dark and slaughtered?. Q. And Victor had made requests to be present or have a representative attend? A. ?Yeah. Victor is in the community, a businessman. He?s very well represented. Highly spoken ofwork into that Department. I?m a real good friend of Victor and Vince. The amount of time that man put into that Department, they tore him apart and just threw him out to the dogs. And what they did to him is just unbelievable. That man has a soft heart, and he would give you the shirt off his back. And after all he did for the place he was made to look like a fool. And that?s a very, very, very sore wound for me. That was in January, so we?re going on a year almost. And I?m going to tell you, that wound is still just as open to me after what I put into this place and what those Councillors did to us. The job always got done. Everyone came back home. Victor did a great job. We had great officers. We had a great bunch down there, and I?m sure there?s a great bunch down there now. I think highly of the boys down there. They?re doing a great job. Can I go back there. No. No. I told Curt the day I went out to the Fire Hall to pick up some personal stuff, I told Curt you know where llive. Anything I can do to help you, come knock on my door. Anything you want. Can I come back here now. Absolutely not. I can?t do it. And that?s fair enough. gave it a lot of thought when the applications came out. Talked it over with my wife, and it came down to how can you go back to something when someone done you so dirty. Somewhere you just got to draw the line. Quite a substantial kick in the guts. And I?m not going to go back for the second kick?. -53- They have an open chequebook there now. The Fire Department looks good. Too bad 13 or 14, the heart of the Fire Department, had to suffer. Of all the good things we did, breakfast for the school, meetings, poppy campaign. I was so ashamed never went back. I was ashamed to sayl was from Spaniard?s Bay. I?d tell them I was from Bay Roberts. It was the Town?s fault. It could have been fixed. Why not go back? I never did anything wrong, and was looked on as a pig. I didn?t want to be a pig?. I remember one time St. John?s was having an auction; some good used bunker gear. Vince and Vic, and two others, [think maybe Brian and Ross, took Vince?s truck to the auction and saved the town some money. There?s lots of money now. Here?s the cheque. Wefoughtfor years for the Jaws of Life, took out a loan, fundraised for it. Since we left, the Town paid it off. It?s laughable but it hurts. A lot of fellows are in rough shape. Even now, fellows will hear the alarm and break down. I can?t explain what happened. I don?t know why. We?ve talked about it?. . ?gladl got this interview over. It?s something you want to do. You want to get it off your chest. Get the Wife to relax a bit. Like lsay the Fire Hall is never going to be the same again. Never going to happen. can?t say that, lsuppose. Maybe in years to come it will, but in regards to letting women in the Fire Department, best thing they ever done. Nothing wrong with it. I met a lot of good ladies in the Fire Department, but they are good ladies, they?re part of the team. Where I?m working now there are ladies. There?s swearing going on. No one stops swearing. That?s the kind ofstu?? you?re going to hear around a bunch of men. And they does it, too. Life don?t change for that. I went and done the sexual harassment course and to me, she?s a bully. Brenda is a bully?? 0.. Why? A. ?Because she wants to be heard. She wants to be seen. She wants to do everything, and you, just be quiet. And when I went down through the paper doing the course, and when I got to the part about being a bully, I looked right at her. She wouldn?t even look at me. To me, she?s a bully, because she couldn?t get her own way?. Q. Was that course done at the Fire Hall? A. hat was done here. And I got nothing to hide, so I did it. I?ve done nothing wrong. Just to get this monkey off my back and I?m gone. An apology. No more. That?s it. I?ll be happy?. Q. So, as far as you?re concerned, all this press was what? A. ?Blown away. Should never have gone to the press. The media blows everything away anyway. So no matter what we said, that was done. Because of the ladies rights everything we ever done was going to be shot down anyway, but we had the Town come out and support us. I think the worst thing we ever done, we never spoke. I think if one of us had to speak, it would have made a big differen ce. One of us should have spoke, said something?. -54- Q. You say that they wouldn?t meet with you. Did you ask for a meeting? A. We asked a couple of times. They wouldn?t come down?. Q. Why was that? A. wouldn?t be able to tell you. We asked them, why didn?t you come down ?Well, we had to get the story straight?. But you should have come down. Call a meeting. Call an emergency meeting?. Q. What did you think about the Town?s apology to Brenda? A. ?For as I?m concerned, the biggest mistake they ever made?. Q. Why? A. Why apologize for us when we never did anything wrong? Don?t apologize for me because I never did anything wrong. Why did you apologize? What are you apologizing for? No need to apologize for me, because I did nothing wrong. And neither did the rest of the boys, . in my eyes. They never did nothing wrong. When lsaw it, it blew me away. What are you apologizing for? What? And like I told them, I want my apology. And I told them I don?t want no more group pictures with the firemen. I got the right to refuse. No group pictures with me. Not ?til this thing is over. If you see any functions involving the Spaniard?s Bay Fire Department you?ll never see my face. Unless they take it and I don?t know about it. But they?re told, no pictures?. At this point, our conversation strayed into the subject of the re-formed Department, and while that was not part of the mandate for this investigation, I am going to speak to it anyway. None ofthe firefighters interviewed displayed the slightest trace of enmity towards the Department. In fact, most wished the new members well, and a number of them expressed the view that, short of going back as members themselves, they were willing to assist in any way they were asked. There was general acknowledgment that it would take some time to replace all the years of experience lost, however, there was also a general feeling that the new personnel, given their enthusiasm, youth, and willingness to learn, would eventually bring the Department back to where it was pre January 19th. "They?re a good bunch of guys. Good bunch of ladies. Look the three ladies we took in. They?re good ladies. Nothing wrong with them. And they?re part of the team. They can work with the guys, and they don?t care if you have a bit of fun, laugh and joke. When it comes to training, some of it involves touching. So, we?re going to do training and it involves a body search. 50 you take somebody out of the crowd and they go hide away. So if it?s a female you got to feel around, grab a leg to haul them out. Not that you want to. .55- So you probably got to put your arms around her, and where?s your arms again? Across her breasts. Am I going to get the same thing again? Now, ldon?t trust it no more. lcan?t say it?s not trust, but I don ?t want to be in that position again. I can?t speak better for the ladies there. But Brenda, not going to happen anymore. Can?t?. Q. The trust is gone? A. "Yeah. And when the trust is gone, everything is gone?. lf Vic did something wrong, why was he not disciplined for it at the time? Why wait a year to bring it up. Vic lost business and his reputation over something he didn?t do. Vic had no control over the video. He didn?t press play. He has a family and kids and he?s a hard worker. The hurt will probably never go away. Just last night! was talking to someone from St. John?s who was at my place on another matter. He saw the Fire Department helmet lhave and started to laugh. lt?s horrible trying to rebuild?. Q. Why didn?t you go back? A. I didn?t want a situation where I would have to refuse to work with Brenda. I didn?t want to look bad. I didn?t trust her?. (1. Why not? A. didn?t want a situation where I could be accused of any inappropriate words. I didn?t trust her training. She would always find a reason not do certain things, but I never witnessed anything in an emergency situation. There is a training exercise where you have to get someone out of a window and down a ladder. As you move down the ladder, the person has to rest on your leg, I would never do that practice with her, and ifl can?t do what I need to do, I didn?t want to do hal I?ve left the final word on the effect to Victor Hiscock, and what follows is an excerpt of 12?15 minutes from an interview which lasted over 2 1A hours. Although the content does stray into other areas, it does, I believe, provide some insight into what he and other members of the Department endured post January 19th. ?It was always a battle with Council money wise. Some will say to you ifyou got to have it you got to have it. That?s it. Back when Gerald Hiscock was Liaison, that?s going along ways back, and we were told to test all our hose and whatever had to be replaced would be. So we went over to the school parking lot and we ended up blowing apart i don?t know how much hose. When it came down to it, it was sixteen or seventeen thousand dollars to replace it. I?d say it was five to seven years before we even got a length. -55- We were told whatever you burst would be replaced. I don?t know if they realized what they were telling us or not, but when you test, you got to drive the pressure to 400 lbs. We were only using 100. When you drive it to extremes, if that?s the protocol, that?s what you got to do. But when we came down with the quote, ?What are you talking about, you got to replace it?? ?Well, that?s what you wanted?. And we were pretty low on hose at that time. Back in those days, there was stuff dropped off to us every day. It was still second hand but it was new to us?. Q. Were you ever uncomfortable with some of the second hand equipment you were given? A. I don?t think. There might have been the odd time, like ifhose had pinholes in it. We?d just take it and cut it apart. Once we seen an issue with it we took it out of service. When the boys went on training that time and learned the bottles had to be re-certified we started to do it. Like lsay, lhad 17 years, and until someone told us it had to be done we were only following the dog?s tail. It was the way it was always done. We didn?t know any di??erent. was never told any differen O. Victor, what do you think of the decision to resign? What do you think of it now? How do you feel about it? A. don?t really know. I miss it. put every day, every single day I did something for the Fire Department, every day. I?ve left work and went anddid stuff. Dad used to get mad at me a scattered time ?cause was doing this and that. The kids are killing me here lately. This weekend was the telethon and stuff. First time in 1 7 years I never did it. And the little fellow said to me, ?Dad, how come we can?t do it but it came to the point that something had to give, something had to be done. We were just getting drilled, getting put down, and stuff brought against you. I know Sheri was trying to do stuff for us, and I know she had a hard battle, too. And some of us were always talking, last year or so, what are we going to do, what can we do? And I was talking to the Fire Commissioner?s office. Talking to Municipal Affairs asking them questions as to what can we do? What should do as Chief? And I couldn?t get any answers or anything. The only thing I could get was the Fire Commissioner said to me one time to get any issues that they had in writing, on paper?. Q. What sort of issues? A. ?Same thing. Don?t know what the issues were. But when you go to a Council meeting and stuff is brought up, well, I just stopped going. I couldn?t take it anymore. It was just too much for me, then a lot of members started going. We knew they were having all these private meetings about the Fire Department, and we didn?t know anything about it. I just don?t know. And when you get people in the public calling you, saying what have you got going on there now. And someone from Search and Rescue calling me, telling me they were going to put me out, going to get a new Chief. ldon?t know. ljust don?t know what was going on. And it just kept boiling and boiling. -57- I think Sheri had a lotto deal with. All she could ever say to us was that there was a lot on the go. We knew there was a lot. To this day now I don?t know what was there?? Q. What?s your feelings on it now? What do you think was going on behind the scenes? A. think they had something against me. I really do Q. Who? A. ?Brenda and Tony for sure. And Lewis Sheppard. Three of the Councillors there for sure. And ljust don?t know ifl ever done anything to them. And if it wasn?t me, ifJoe Blow was Chie}c out there, would they have done the same to him. don?t know. Like lsay, was Chieffor a long time, but, if no one comes to me, if they had come to me and said, we?d like you to step aside and let someone else take on the role, well thank you. I?ve always said to the crowd here, If there is any issue, if you don?t want me there, let me know. l?m more than happy to step aside?. When I went there 8?10 years ago, 10-12 years ago, whenever it was, there was a lot of people after me to run then. I was still green into it but I never missed a practice, never missed a function. I loved it. I really did. I still do, I just, I don?t know. i wouldn?t be able to go back at anything like it now. The people in the Legion here got me drove mad to join, but I?d never be able to volunteer any more. I?d never be able to put myself out there. Like lsay, with Council up here, if there was something being brought back to them, if there was something I was doing wrong. If they had something that they should have dealt with, why didn?t they deal with it? Why let it boil over and let it get on the news and all that? Why? And if! was portrayed, I guess that is the word, like that, this is a bad person?. Q. After Gerald did his report, Council was going to advertise for Chief, why did you go back? A. ?l was never taken out of it?. Q. No, but they made a motion to advertise, then they rescinded it, and you stayed on. Why did you do that? Why not insist that they go through the process of putting your name in and going for the job? A. don?t know. lenjoyed what! was doing. That?s the easiest way to answer it. know I?ve said to them the last couple of times, ?Boys, come on. If you want to do it, come on and do it?. And the last couple of times, no one wants to run against me. Like Isaid, if anyone wanted it, here it is. It?s nothing to me? (1. Again, with reference to Gerald Hiscock?s report, none of his recommendations were put into place. Was there a reason for that? A. ?Once it was done, I never heard talk of it after?. -53- Q. Did you receive any direction from Council? One of the things recommended was an evaluation system for firefighters. Was that ever followed up on? A. ?It?s the same as doing this now. When I got my letter I thought about it. lsaid, ?What is it going to accomplish?? I?ve been through this once and I kind of got shafted on that deal because it turned out to be a buddy system. And when they said there was an outside person I said well, I want to be part ofsomething, just to know if! done something wrong, what I done, ifl done something'wrong, that kind of way. I don?t know. No one ever came to me and said we need this done or we need that done, or asked me to do something that I had to do, that kind of thing?. Q. What would you like to see come out of it? A. don?t know. i really don?t. Like lsay, the accusations that were made against me, I didn?t do that stuff. Never?. 0.. Was your name ever mentioned in any of the newspaper articles in relation to any specific allegations? And i have to go back into the newspaper archives for what i can find. And what I?m trying to find is anything other than this video and the balaclava thing. Was there anything else? Was there ever any intimidation or bullying? Did any of the members? A. ?No, lcan?t see it. No. I?ll say no there wasn?t. No way. ldon?t know how to even answer. Everyone tried so hard to make everyone fit in and get along, that sort of thing. Try to be nice to everyone and make it work. You got 30-32 people in this group and it?s not always going to be smooth sailing. No way in the world. And like lsay, make this work, and when you got someone who is rooting at you all the time, you still try to be nice. Try to make good of it all. And everyone tries to make good of it all. There was a few times at meetings there would be a bit of heated discussion and I?d try and just stop it. ldon?t know how many times I banged on the table andjust said stop it, because i know people had issues with other people. And when you got a big group like that there is no way to make it work all the time. And it is no good to get really frustrated with anyone because the pager goes off five minutes after, and if you still got that bad thought in your head about someone, that?s not the place for it. And that was my biggest fear. I don?t know if it was a fear, but I didn?t want that. I don?t know how to explain it. We always said in meetings ?What happens at the table, stays at the table?, for that reason. I wish I?d known if! did do something, but there?s nothing that I ever knew of that I done. Q. Was anything ever brought to you through the Chain of Command at the Fire Department? A. ?Not thatlcan recall. Never?. -59- 0.. Victor, that just about covers what I had to ask. Are there any comments you?d like to make? A. ?Ever since we spoke about having an interview I?ve been just thinking about stu??, my wife telling me lshould be writing stu?? down but I?m not even into that. I?d like to have it past and go clear of it?. Q. Is there anything that can be done to put it at least half right in your mind? A. don?t know. After what I?ve been through, what I?ve been called, I?m not. Now, when you does your thing you may come back and say you did do this or you did do that. I don?t know. And that?s something I got to take when that time comes. Again, the Mayor went out and made an apology to Brenda on behalf of the Town and on behalf of the Fire Department?. Q. What did you think of that? A. ?It was the most foolish thing I ever seen. Cause he never, ever asked the question of what was done wrong. Or tried to find out. Idon?t understand them sitting in the same room with the person who has the problem and they telling him what to say. One of the boys asked him why did you apologize to her. ?They told me I had to?. So they never looked into nothing to see if there was any wrongdoing?. Q. So no one ever asked you for your side of the story? A. ?Terry Roberts, the Newsman, called and said everything to me. He asked me for an interview, and I said, ?l?m sorry, I?ve got nothing to say at this time?. And he was going on and said, ?well, the story I have is what I?m printing?. He just went on and said, ?so you?re not going to speak?. Isaid, ?No, I?m not going to speak. I haven?t done anything wrong?. And he was just bawling in the phone at me. I wouldn?t have time to speak to anyone like that regardless. I had calls from news media right across the country. They called lVlom?s house. Dad was really sick at the time. We had him put in the home then, actually. And I didn?t want him to hear that or have to deal with that. I just didn?t want him to ever hear it. I was at my mother?in-la w?s, and I turn ed on the news, watching it after supper. I was sitting there with my mother-in?Iaw and my children, and Brenda came on the news, telling this stuff, and, oh my, what a feeling. I was a few months I didn?t even want to go out. I didn?t want to go somewhere with my children, just for the sake of having someone look at me and saying something to me. What I?ve had to go through for trying to do good for people. Every day I tried to do something for the Fire Department, and then to look at people who are just there for self. That?s the way I look at it. I just, I don?t know. Just the way different people are, I guess, but it?s hard to take, that kind of way. It don?t give a goodfeeling, what I had done to me, and that thing that was put on Facebook, and people saying that to me, and looking at me, and that?s not me. I?m not that kind of person, what I?m being portrayed as. I?m just not into that at all. And what I?ve had done to me. -50- My wife even got dragged into this with the RCMP calling the house. This five wives thing. And when the ladies saw what it was, it was supposedly read off a phone at a Council meeting first. And then they said it was sent in the mail and they got it. But when they saw it, it was months of conversation over the computer, whatever they does. And it was just bits and pieces picked out of here and there and put together to make it look like it was. So whatever someone done there, it was the some thing. So I don?t know what people are trying to do, what they?re into, stu?? like that?. -51- .I. Chief Hiscock: The purpose of including Victor Hiscock in this section is more for the purpose of analyzing his leadership, since that was allegedly the focus ofthe whole campaign to bring him down. By his own admission, Victor Hiscock?s forte was not in the area of administration. He was more concerned with the end product, that is, the quality of service which left the fire hall rather than the mundane but necessary business of, for instance, ensuring that the proper log book was kept when his BA bottles were filled. It is fair to say, though, that Chief Hiscock was held in most high esteem, both by and in his Department as well as his community, and there is nothing to suggest that he was anything but a respected leader and efficient director where it mattered most, at a fire or other emergency scene. In addition to comments already documented elsewhere in this report: Vic was a great Chief and a great leader. A working man who worked hard to support his family. He was never given any direction or policies by the town so he was flying by the seat of his pants, doing what he had been taught. He spent countless hours doing workfor the Department and never missed a call or practice. Those guys dedicated their lives to the Department. Every two years we would have elections of officers. Vic was a likeable guy so he got re-elected. If someone is doing a good job, why change? He was trusted, and a very knowledgeable person on a fire scene? I don?t know why she had it in for Victor. He was never given any guidelines, and got his training on the job. He was a volunteer, and ran the Department as he was taught, passed down from other Chiefs?. It is sad, very sad. Vic is a quiet man with a family and kids, a gentleman. I would go to jail for that man?. Vic was always telling us to watch the speed on the way to the Fire Hall. Always talking about respect?. There was one incident of a house fire in Tilton, in the winter. A heater had malfunctioned in the fire hall and the light over the door wasn?t working. It was late Saturday night, and 4:00 AM Sunday morning when we returned to the Fire Hall. There wasn?t enough heat in the building to thaw the equipment and clothing, but Vic was back at 9:00 AM checking on everything. They got all kinds of money for the Fire Department now. How come we had to fundraise for everything back then?? -62- ?Vic was only doing what the person before him did. If the Town wanted policies, they should have sat down with us and did them. It was never done. Vic was a good leader. If the body elects someone, that?s who they follow. Being Chief-is a lot of work. Trying to manage 25 or 30 people. Vic is sel?employed and was always available. Cart and Victor were a good combo?. The Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Volunteer Fire Department was/is not unique in the challenges it faces, with the reality of out migration, erratic work schedules, which sometimes take members out of the community for weeks at a time, family commitments, and other interests. A number of firefighters mentioned that daytime calls were/are the most challenging in terms of human resources. Victor Hiscock, being a lifelong resident of the town as well as being self-employed with a successful family business, was one of a core of firefighters who were available at almost any time. As mentioned very early in this report, firefighters were becoming increasingly concerned that an element of Council wanted to replace him as Chief. He was, after all, their choice as leader, running the Department as he had learned from those who had done so before him. The continuing level of disrespect being shown toward him during the Fall of 2015 caused Firefighters as well as Firettes to attend Council meetings during that time. Council had long ago abandoned any pretense of providing guidance to the Department and, although Gerald Hiscock had expressed a concern in the area of administration, successive Councils offered nothing in the way of administrative guidance, assistance, or training. In his 2010 study, he also stated that ?In accepting the role of Fire Chief, Mr. Hiscock inherited problems left over from previous administrations". If that was indeed the case, then Victor Hiscock had to be doing an exceptional job, given the positive comments in Council during the ensuing years. - find it somewhat inconsistent that none of the characteristics normally associated with any effort to have a leader removed apply to Victor Hiscock. The evidence suggests that he ran his Department with the same consideration and respect for the opinions of others that he displayed in his everyday business dealings. Adjectives such as abrasive, dictatorial, undemocratic, oppressive, overbearing, and others, do not appear in any dialogue when it comes to the subject of Chief Hiscock and his leadership, and their very absence begs the question of what was it all about? In referring to Victor Hiscock, the description which seems to be the most apt is the word ?gentleman?. When denied by the ?rules of Council? to respond to disparaging comments being made about him, he chose to simply stay away, rather than take the confrontational road of demanding, in writing, a list of the allegations against him and demanding that he be permitted to respond, in writing to those allegations. -53- it is my view that Victor Hiscock, secure in his own conviction that he had done nothing to warrant the level of criticism being directed his way, genuinely felt that the rumor, innuendo, and false accusations would, in time, settle down, and that matters would return to normal. Chief Hiscock was placed in an untenable situation. Again, in my view, he was not a particularly harsh disciplinarian, and his unwillingness and/or inability to confront the recalcitrant element within his own Department, combined with his unwillingness to demand respect and due process from a Council which had clearly abandoned him, contributed in no small measure to the growing level of frustration and helplessness within the Department. In his defence, and I don?t think this factor has been given the significance it deserves, Victor Hiscock was dealing with a distressing personal issue, that being the terminal illness of his father, and, putting matters into perspective, I rather suspect that that weighed more heavily on his mind at the time than dealing with the trivialities of responding to, what was to him, tripe. Had circumstances allowed him to confront the campaign to have him replaced head on, and had he not resigned, it is merely speculation to reflect on what turn, if any, the ruthlessness of the campaign may have ta ken. Certainly, his resignation was the fait accompli, and the subsequent allegations of sexual harassment were the crowning blow, but at what cost? What cost, not only to the reputation of Victor Hiscock, but to the character of other members of the Fire Department who were targeted by the media and general public and subjected to the vitriol and ridicule of not only a Province but, indeed, a Nation? What cost to the Town in terms of the loss of, potentially, countless hours of work by proven volunteers? Fully one year later, Victor Hiscock, as well as other former and current members of the Fire Department are still left to wonder what, if anything, they did to warrant the scathing level of criticism levelled against them. -54- SECTION 5 - ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Allegations of November 16th, 2015. (1) Mismanagement of Town Property: Explanation for this allegation is provided by means of three (3) sub?paragraphs. For the sake of clarity, and in the interests of being able to provide a reasoned analysis, 1 have divided this allegation into three separate ones, and will deal with each in turn. Allegation llal - Damage to the Town?s fire apparatus (pamper, unit 1) and damage to the Fire Department Building. ANALYSIS: The basis for this allegation is an incident in which a recruit, while still on probation, attempted to move the pumper out of the fire hall without first taking the proper precaution of checking to ensure that all doors, equipment and otherwise, were closed. As he was exiting the fire hall, an open equipment door on the truck hooked the garage door, causing minimal damage to the truck but significant damage to the door. First of all, under normal circumstances, the recruit should/would not have attempted to move the truck in the first place. The Chief?s policy was that even after completion of Minimum Standards, operation of a vehicle was not permitted until after the member had completed his/her one (1) year probation period. The circumstances of this occurrence, however, were not entirely normal, as it occurred during a mid?afternoon accident call, a period oftime when a minimum of personnel are available. Since this was an accident call, Unit two (2), containing the rescue tools, had proceeded to the scene, with Chief Hiscock as part of this crew. The pumper was placed on standby pending, of course, the arrival of sufficient crew to roll it. Since time is always of the essence, the recruit either made a decision on his own, or, acting on a suggestion from another firefighter at the station (the evidence is unclear), to move the pumper outside, to save the incoming crew a few seconds in getting to the scene. There was no intent, nor was there any thought given to driving the vehicle to the scene. Unfortunately, parking space at the station is such that one vehicle has to sit at an angle, necessitating a very careful exit process. -55- In the world of emergency services, incidents rarely occur in textbook fashion. In the real world, in circumstances where crews are Shorthanded, in the rush to clear the station, in the rush to provide injured parties with needed services, unfortunate things happen, circumstances are fluid and constantly changing, rules are broken, risks taken, mistakes are made, and lessons are learned. Equipment is sometimes lost or damaged, with no harm intended. In the world of emergency services, it is simply the cost of doing business. This is not an attempt to be cavalier or to say that personnel are careless with public property. It is simply an attempt to position this event into the reality of an emergency response and to suggest that we not turn such an incident into anything more than it was, a rookie mistake. Certainly nothing worthy of a National Post partial headline, with its inherent connotation of, ?Crashed trucks?. On a scale of carelessness, it is certainly no more egregious than an experienced firefighter losing a B.A. bottle while on a training exercise, at significant cost to the Department. On that occasion, there was no complaint made, no allegation of broken rules, no public blame game. The incident was properly handled in house, through the Chain of Command, with lessons learned, regrets expressed, and appropriate action taken to prevent a reoccurrence. Again, equipment is sometimes lost or damaged, with no harm intended. In the world of forces aligned against him, there was even a rather asinine notion circulated that the Chief Hiscock was somehow responsible for the unfortunate, serious injury suffered by a worker while repairing the garage door. Chief Hiscock was in no way responsible for the violation of policy or the resulting damage. He was not present, gave no authorization for the recruit to move the truck, and was unaware of the incident until notified via radio. This allegation is unfounded. -55- Allegation 1(b) - (Occupational Health and Safety) inspection was conducted and revealed that our Fire Department is in violation of 12 orders, mainly related to SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) and air filling station(Cascade system). These are potentially severe life threatening violations, and can be traced back several years. ANALYSIS: This inspection originated with an anonymous call to in the Fall of 2015 and was carried out on October 22nd Appendix refers. As noted most of the violations were related to the Cascade system, which is simply a high pressure gas storage system which is used in the filling of smaller compressed gas cylinders. In the world of firefighting, it enables the re?filling of breathing apparatus bottles quickly and efficiently without having to resort to the use of a compressor. The plain truth of violations pertaining to the system in use by the Spaniards Bay Department is probably similar to that of dozens of other small Fire Departments in the Province. That is not to minimize the problem or concern but to lay the groundwork for some historical perspective to the realities facing these small Departments in their efforts to forage, contrive, improvise, and raise sufficient funds to operate. As Departments evolve and grow, equipment is sometimes purchased new, but more often than not it is surplus, obtained from other, larger Departments who have upgraded. Spaniard?s Bay has itself been approached by even smaller Departments interested in either the purchase or donation of used equipment, and on it goes. What generates complaint in one Department is viewed as a godsend in another Department. The Cascade system in use by the Department in 2015 did not meet regulations for the simple reason that it couldn?t meet regulations. Fifteen (15), probably twenty (20) years ago, the Department had no Cascade system. Breathing apparatus tanks were filled by means of a compressor and the process of filling one took approximately 30 minutes, a significant challenge at the scene of a major fire where two or three BA teams could be involved. Purchase of a system required either funding from Council or the raising of funds by the Department itself, or, in the tradition of ingenuity and self-reliance practiced by most of these Departments, firefighters of the day built their own system, fully functional, well able to meet their needs, and a vast improvement over what they had. That is the system still in use in 2015. Chief Hiscock designated duties within his executive so that his Lieutenants handled the work of training officers while his Captains were responsible for equipment upkeep. In actual practice, though, senior members offered the benefit of their knowledge and experience towards the training of less experienced members, and, likewise, Department personnel as a whole had a hand in the maintenance and upkeep of equipment. -57- Tanks were emptied and filled as often as was deemed necessary. Hoses were regularly checked for wear and tear and replaced as needed, and as funding allowed. BA bottles were replaced as they became outdated, again subject to the dictates of funding. The compressor was serviced by a qualified mechanic, and maintenance of trucks was performed on a regular basis. it is worth noting that, in its couple of decades of service, the system performed as it was meant to do, and there are no documented incidents of firefighters ingesting bad air due to malfunction of the system. In fact, on the day of the inspection two of the complaints had been satisfied, half within a few days, and all were completed within 30 days. As for the Cascade system itself, as early as 2012 Chief Hiscock made representation to Council to have a new system included as part of the package of replacement for the 1994 cube van which had outlived its effectiveness. In October of 2014, Chief Hiscock and Assistant Chief Roberts met with Liaison Sheri Collins, and again listed replacement of the Cascade system as a priority in a list which Councillor Collins presented to Council. The following excerpt is taken from Council?s meeting of November 5th, 2012, and shows the challenges faced in the procurement of funding for equipment upgrade at the time Hiscock updated Council on the status of the BA Bottles at the Fire Department. Eight (8) bottles have either been taken out of service or are about to because they have become outdated and one (1) other has been removed because of damage. The Town was successful in receiving funding to replace just four (4) of the bottles. The Chief explained that the Department would like for Council to replace the full compliment of bottles as they are not in a position to raise funds for them at this time. BA bottles cost $495.00 plus HST. Orders of more than six (6) units reduces the cost to $450.00 each plus HST. It was moved by Councillor Jewer, seconded by Councillor Smith, that the matter of BA bottles for the Fire Department be referred to the Finance Committee for its review and disposition at the discretion of the committee. It was further moved that the Chief be invited to attend the meeting if his schedule permits?. The obvious question is why is this even a subject of debate, given the fact that issues relating to SCBA and air filling station are ?potentially severe and life threatening?. Clearly, Chief Hiscock recognized the need for upgrade, and it is indeed unfortunate that instead of working hand in glove with him to that end, elements of Council thought it more important to bring the Chief down than to bring the system up. -53- It is patently unfair, and lam not prepared to hold Chief Hiscock solely accountable to maintenance of a system that was unmaintainable, particularly in View of the fact that others, Council included, have to bear a share of responsibility, for either knowing the system was not able to meet standard or failing to speak in support of the Chief?s efforts to have it replaced. Let us not forget that this system pre?dated Victor Hiscock?s election as Chief, and quite possibly, his involvement with the Fire Department as well. Finally, in the spring of 2016, in the wake of the resignations ofJanuary 19th and subsequent re? staffing, Council approved funding and presented the Department with a new Cascade system as well as a new in?house pump. This allegation is unfounded. -69- Allegation 11c] Failure to keep proper documentation regarding equipment maintenance. This is an essential duty of any organization, and puts our Town in an immense liability situation. Analysis: In lieu of having been given the opportunity to provide some clarity to the alleged failure to keep proper documentation, I will have to assume that it is in relation to the inspection only. The inspection document issued by provides three (3) instances where the keeping of proper documentation was not up to standard. That is not to say there was no documentation. There is evidence that Chief Hiscock had made several attempts to maintain a system of documentation, utilizing at different times tags and stickers to maintain SCBA cylinder purge and maintenance dates, however, the systems never seemed to take hold in the manner intended, and while there is no evidence that the maintenance was not done, the record keeping left something to be desired. By his efforts to adopt a system, the Chief recognized the importance of record maintenance, albeit he was unaware that records HAD to be kept. Let us remember that Chief Hiscock was a volunteer, carrying on as he had been taught, as he had learned, and indeed, was still learning, with little to no direction or instruction as to what was required by regulation. Aside from the various failed methods, some of the testing was documented in paper form kept in his desk. No one had ever asked to see these records; no one had enquired as to whether they were being kept, and the manner of their keeping was clearly not in accordance with the method as laid down in regulations. While it would appear to be contradictory to find the Chief in violation of record keeping relative to equipment over which he did not have total control, I accept the fact that he did recognize the need to maintain proper records and he should have ensured that they were kept in a more controlled manner. This allegation is founded. -70- Allegation 2 - Failure to comply with Government Legislation: Explanation: Pursuant to Section 23 of the Fire Prevention Act (see attachment) and also listed under Fire Chief Regulations, Municipalities Act, and with regard to Minimum Standards Legislation: Damage to the Town?s Fire Apparatus, and The Town?s Fire Department building was a direct result of a failure to comply with the above mentioned legislation. Analysis: August 2009 Fire and Emergency Services, Newfoundland and Labrador, introduced a program of Minimum Training Standards, Orientation Level for all firefighters in the Province. All current firefighters were given two (2) years to complete Minimum Standards training, while all new firefighters were required to meet the required level within six (6) months of their start date. New firefighters should have the Orientation Level completed before attending an emergency scene. The Minimum Standards Orientation Level is just that, a minimum standard which all firefighters must meet in order to ensure that they can function safely at an emergency scene. It is NOT a program which even begins to teach the complex process of how to respond to, attack and/or control a fire. Minimum Standards Orientation Level training has its emphasis on six (6) components: Incident Command System, i.e. Chain of Command Safety at the Scene Personal Protection Equipment Hazardous Materials and Transportation of Dangerous Goods Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, Occupational Health and Safety As is evident throughout this report, Minimum Standards became a lightning rod whenever allegations of concern about operations within the Fire Department were raised. To firefighters who had completed Minimum Standards, it was frustrating to see them used as a Departmental football for the purpose of, to them, obvious attempts to cause embarrassment to the Chief. In fact, several felt that the Spaniards Bay Department had actually exceeded the requirements of Minimum Standards by applying a hands on component, under supervision, to the training. Any suggestion that Minimum Standards require six (6) months to complete is totally erroneous. The reference to 6 months refers to the time from their start date when new firefighters must meet minimum standards, Orientation Level. -71- The actual time required to complete the Minimum Standards booklet is, in the opinion of firefighters interviewed, members who have completed the training, measured in terms of hours. Not days, not months, and while much controversy was created with the September 18th, 2015 rejection of names submitted at that time, names of individuals who had completed a full summer oftraining, there is evidence that following the re-birth of 2016, minimum standards were completed in a matter of hours, with no dissension from Council. in addition to the Minimum Standards training, Chief Hiscock enforced another level of compliance to members of his own Department, including those who had completed Minimum Standards training, by his insistence that members be restricted to certain duties until the completion of their one (1) year probationary period. I realize that it is taking an inordinately long time to address what would appear to be a fairly unambiguous issue, but it became such a controversial item that it is worth hearing some of the opinion surrounding it: ?since the first big group passed Minimum Standards when the program started, probably 20 have gone through since. There was never an issue. It was brought up at the Convention and there was nothing wrong with the way we were doing it. It is mostly common sense stuff. I think what happened with the list that was rejected is that we had put in a list earlier, then another one. There was some sort of mix up at the Town Hall, and both lists of names got put in together. They said a couple of the names on the list hadn?t been there long enough, or weren?t with the Department any more, so they rejected them all. They still passed Minimum Standards whether they were still there or not. We had kept training open all summer to get them trained. They never missed a meeting, did the smoke house training, did it all, did the book?. ?the way Minimum Standards works is you have 6 months to get it done. Everyone there was certified. At the convention last year we asked the Fire Commissioner how long it takes to do the booklet and he said he could do it in four (4) hours. 2 months, no. It is basic, nothing to do with operating the truck, hose. There is a video and a quiz to be done?. During a Fire Department meeting when Minimum Standards were discussed, she was asked why she had voted against accepting some names. She said that the names should have listed certificates and quali?cations, and that any Councillor who voted to accept the names voted blindly. She made the comment, ?That?s what you have for a Council?. She was on Council when Minimum Standards were brought in. The list was passed in, signed by the Chief. It was accepted at the time and there was no list of qualifications. Now, members were voted down because there was no list of qualifications?. -72- ?In a public meeting, Victor asked Brenda why she had voted against accepting the new members. I?ll never forget it. She turned around in her chair because he was sort of behind her. She said to him, ?I?ll face you when I talk to you. I wasn?t voting to accept anything that would make you look good??. Vic brought up the paperwork. We usually shutdown training in the summer, but that year we stayed open all summer. Those new members never missed a Thursday night. Brenda went against the Chief and training officer and voted against them?. couple of nights. 7?10 hours at the most, according to the person from Fire and Emergency Services when they asked about it out at the convention in Gander. There is a booklet?. I can?t see how Council can vote against Minimum Standards. It?s only a booklet, couple of hours with the projector. It has nothing to do with firefighting. It can easily be done in 7 hours. I don?t know if the Fire Commissioner?s office even recognizes it anymore. Last time we tried, we couldn?t even get an answer sheet from them. They give you 6 months to get it done. There?s not much to it?. ?We had some new guys who signed on just before summer. We usually shut down training in summer and pick it up again in September. We had a discussion, and because of the new faces, kept the doors open every Thursday night through that summer. They put in hours of training, completed the booklets, and were more than qualified. Victor signed off on their minimum standards and submitted the names to Council. They were turned down. ldon?t know why. I wasn?t there. lt was the first time anyone had been turned down, and like lsaid, they were more than qualified. 90% of the time Ms. Seymour was not there for the Thursday night training?. In the "explanation? paragraph, reference is made to the Fire Chief Regulations which compile a list of eleven (11) duties listed at Section What is referred to as Minimum Standards is not legislation, but a training standard set down by Newfoundland and Labrador Fire and Emergency Services. While at first read this allegation would appear to encompass four (4) acts of Provincial legislation, namely the Fire Prevention Act, Fire Chief Regulations, Municipalities Act, and Minimum Standards, in reality there is only one set of regulations, plus the aforementioned Minimum Standards. lfthe intent of the allegation is to point to the Municipalities Act, there is nothing specifically referred to, nor is there any particular item from the list of duties named. While i am not about to attempt speculation as to what, if anything specific, is being referred, upon reflection of the evidence, most of those requirements have been met to varying degrees. -73- The Fire Prevention Act, by the way, as referred to in this allegation, is no longer in force, having been repealed in 2008. In any event, with reference to the specific allegation, that of the damage to the pumper and building caused through the ?direct result? of failure to comply with government legislation, the evidence paints a scenario of a junior firefighter, in the context of an emergency situation, overstepping the bounds laid down by his boss, and violating Section 2.4 of the Minimum Standards training manual by his inattention to safety issues in his fire station. There is no evidence to connect the actions of the junior firefighter through any failure to comply with Minimum Standards training to Victor Hiscock. The allegation is unfounded. have one more thought concerning the list of duties as contained in Section 3(1) of the Fire Chief Regulations. These regulations were made pursuant to Section 415 of the Municipalities Act, and are thus Province wide in terms ofjurisdiction. i rather suspect that the legislative intent of these regulations was to provide guidelines, particularly pertaining to large Fire Departments with paid staff, including the Chief. I cannot envision Fire Chiefs in many of our smaller Departments even being aware of these guidelines, let alone having either the time, the staff, or the administrative skills to implement and supervise many of the duties described. Furthermore, Sub?section (2) would seem to mirror my own reflection on the intent of the legislation, since it appears to presume that a collaborative approach is needed in order to fully implement requirements of the office, recognizing that the vast majority of these men and women are volunteers, doing the best they can, often in the face of inadequate resources and support. Sub?section (2) states "The duties in Sub-section (1) may, in the absence or inability of the fire chief, be carried out by a person designated by the fire chief, manager, council, or local service district?. It is, again, unfortunate in this case, that a coalition of Council, intent on removal of the Chief, was apparently oblivious to its own degree of responsibility inherent in the Regulations. -74- Allegation 3 - FAILURE TO ENFORCE A DIRECT ORDER OF COUNCIL Explanation: a. Fire Chief was ordered during a meeting to enforce Provincial guidelines, and ?stand down on all medical only calls received. Only Departments trained to do so may respond to medical emergencies. Otherwise, this is a liability to our Town. b. After direction of Council was given to the Fire Chief on this matter, Councillors have been collectively informed that this order was not complied with on November 3rd, 2015. Councillors have also been informed that this order was not relayed to the Fire Department Membership during a regular meeting. Analysis: At Council?s meeting of September 28th, 2015, the issue of the Fire Department responding to medical calls was discussed. Deputy Mayor Brazil advised that he had received information that a fire department should only respond to medical calls when they have the proper equipment, training, and liability insurance coverage specific to medical emergencies. A motion was subsequently made and carried that the Spaniards Bay Volunteer Fire Department not respond to calls for medical service until such time as the Department met the three criteria required. Section 183 of the Municipalities Act Council may establish, operate, and maintain afire for the purpose of fire fighting, fire prevention, and responding to emergency services for other emergencies that may be authorized by council?. Traditionally, the Spaniard?s Bay Department had responded to all emergency calls, be they fires, motor vehicle accidents, or any other emergency where they could be of assistance. The local ambulance service came to rely on the Department for assistance in particularly difficult lifting operations, and to attend scenes if their response time was going to be significantly delayed for any reason. The Council directive is quite specific as it refers to ?medical only calls?. The problem arises when dealing with the grey area of whether a medical event caused the emergency or an emergency caused the medical event. As an example, did a heart attack cause a vehicle rollover, or did a vehicle rollover cause a heart attack? Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton is adjacent to Veteran?s Memorial Highway, a 100 km/hr. zone major arterial roadway on which there have been any number of serious motor vehicle accidents over the years. -75- The nature of emergency calls, i.e. panic, communications issues, misinterpretation, sometimes makes it difficult to determine the exact nature of the emergency. Clearly, it is far better to err on the side of attending for naught than in not attending when ought. There is another issue associated with medical calls, and that is related to the nature of the membership themselves. Let us remember once again that these individuals are all volunteers, and there is a reason why volunteers volunteer. It is quite simply that they want to be of service, and to tell them there is a situation in which they may be of service but that they are not permitted to attend, for any reason, can raise its own level of frustration. There is a saying, at least in Police circles, that policies were written for the guidance of wise men, and the blind obedience of fools. Simply put, it is, quite literally, impossible to write a policy to cover every scenario which might be encountered in the world of emergency services, and on occasion, even the most well intended policy must give way to an element of common sense. Is it even reasonable to tell personnel trained and certified in the operation of the Jaws of Life, that they may attend a scene in order to perform a life and death extrication, then tell the same personnel, trained and certified in First Aid, that they cannot attend a scene of a person with a serious cut, within shouting distance of the Fire Hall, forthe simple reason that the latter call is ?medical only? in nature? I fully understand, and the interviewees fully understand that members of this Department were not trained as first responders, however, whether trained or not, the reality is that they were often first responders to any number of emergencies which necessitated significant medical assistance, and the reality of emergency services is that they cannot operate effectively under threat of being a ?liability to our Town?. Surely Councillors do not believe that these volunteers are going to attempt medical procedures outside their level of expertise. September 28th was not the first time the issue of medical calls was raised. All members knew that they were not supposed to respond to such calls. That is why, on a number of occasions, when it was clear that a medical call had come over their pager, firefighters, including the Chief, responded as private citizens, avoiding the Fire Hall, and offering whatever assistance they could. To put volunteer emergency services in that situation is, in my view, absurd. In the matter of the call of November the following was learned: The call came in as a medical call, and the circumstances were that a citizen of the Town had collapsed in the woods off Old Track Road and, unfortunately, passed away. The family was requesting the assistance of the Fire Department to assist in transporting his body out of the woods. -75- Chief Hiscock was out of town and Assistant Chief Randy Davis was left to make the call. He was aware that they were not to respond to medical calls, however, under the circumstances, and acting in what he felt were the best interests of the family as well as the Department, A/Chief Davis made the cal! to go and offer what assistance they could. in the meantime, Chief Hiscock had returned and, upon hearing details of the call, advised the crew to return. After they came back, two of the firefighters, doing exactly what they had signed up to do, returned to the scene with their own equipment to provide the necessary assistance to a family in need of it. At the scene, they encountered Councillor Dominix, and felt obliged to tell him that they were there as private citizens and not as firefighters, the result that their efforts were recognized by Councillor Dominix in a subsequent Council meeting. I find it somewhat disconcerting that this was even raised as an allegation against Chief Hiscock since it was common knowledge that it was A/Chief Davis who made the call to attend, there is evidence that Chief Hiscock had told his members in a Fire Department meeting that they were no longer to respond to medical calls, and the allegation was raised in Council fully two (2) weeks after it had occurred. The matter was raised in the Fire Department meeting of November 19th, when FF Seymour was asked why she had misinformed Council of the details of the medical call. Her answer to her colleague at that time was to, ?Get a life?. Again she was asked, and again the response was, ?Get a life?. When the matter was pressed, the exchange became heated, with raised voices and pointed fingers, and there is no indication that a satisfactory answer, or any answer, was ever provided. I believe it was Mark Twain who coined the old newspaper adage of Never Let the Truth Get in the Way ofa Good Story, or at least something to that effect, and it is even more disconcerting that long after it had been put to rest, misinformation concerning medical calls was still being printed in the mainline press: The National Post, January 21?, 2016 ?The Chief has brazenly defied town orders to stop responding to medical coils?. As to the allegation of failure to enforce a direct order of Council, Victor Hiscock was not there when the call was received, had no input into the decision to go, and, against his own better judgment but in compliance with the wishes of Council, put a stop to the effort. The allegation against him is unfounded. -77- Allegation 4: FAILURE TO MEET REQUEST REGARDING PREPARATION 8t SUBMISSION OF REPORTS OF FIRE DEPARTMENT AND LIFE SAFETY. Explanation: See Fire Chief Regulations, M.A., also see Article 64(7), IVI.A. In addition to previous comments concerning Fire Chief Regulations, there is nothing in Council minutes to suggest that Council had requested reports from the Fire Chief, neither is there anything to suggest that Council was concerned in any way with the frequency of reports from the Fire Department. Quite the contrary, various excerpts from Council minutes up to the Fall of 2015 indicate overall satisfaction with the way the Department was operating. A meeting of February 24th, 2014 references quarterly reports, and in addition to that, Chief Hiscock made known to Council on any number of occasions that he was available to address any concerns they might have. Council?s response to that was to disrespect him to the extent that, by late 2015, they would not so much as honor his request to be placed on the agenda of Council meetings when matters pertaining to his Department were to be discussed. Any reference to Section 64(7) of the Municipalities Act is extraneous, since that particular Section was repealed in its entirety in 2011. The allegation is unfounded. -73- Allegation 5: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A PROGRAM OF PROMOTION OF PERSONNEL, FAILURE TO PROPERLY ALLOCATE BUDGETED TRAINING ALLOWANCES, FAILURE TO DEPLOY DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL FOR MAXIMUM EFFECTIVENESS. As with No. 1, have separated allegations contained in the following rather convoluted explanation into three (3) separate allegations, for reasons of clarity and in the interest of dealing with each on its own merit. Explanation: Trained Firefighter Level on traffic duties, while untrained personnel directly on scene. in violation of: Fire Chief Regulations, Municipalities Act, 1999, Section 415, a-k. Firefighter refused access to training allowance benefits and town firefighting equipment/ppe to attend Provincial Fire School. As previously noted, in lieu of being given the opportunity to clarify, I will have to make certain assumptions as to which specific sections of the Fire Chief Regulations are being alluded to. Any errors or misunderstandings in making these assumptions are totally mine. Allegation FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A PROGRAM 0F PROMOTION OF PERSONNEL - Analysis: There is no specific explanation provided as a basis for this allegation, however, I will assume that the complainant is referring to Section 3, paragraph(d) of the Regulations which says, fire chief shall maintain a program of recruitment, selection, and promotion of personnel?. - I will not speculate on why one aspect, that being promotion of personnel, was picked out of this paragraph, however, the idea of a program of promotion of personnel has its genesis in Recommendation No. 4 as outlined in Gerald Hiscock?s 2010 report, a positive idea that recommended that Town Council, along with the Town Manager and Fire Chief work together to formulate a Fire Personnel Evaluation System to meet the needs of the Department. In actual fact, there is a program of promotion of personnel within the Department, and that is the election of executive every two years, a system favoured by the Department, and sanctioned by Council during Victor Hiscock?s tenure as Chief. -79- Back to Gerald Hiscock?s report; his recommendation never saw the light of day as Council, of which Ms. Seymour was part, never gave Chief Hiscock access to that particular report, with its recommendation that all three entities work together to create the System. If effect, a faction of Council, negligent in its responsibilities and inattentive in its response to Gerald Hiscock?s report, now brings an allegation against Victor Hiscock for failing to maintain a program that it never started in the first place. Seriously? This allegation is unfounded. -30- Allegation 51b}: FAILURE TO PROPERLY ALLOCATE BUDGETED TRAINING ALLOWANCES Explanation: Firefighter refused access to training allowance benefits and town firefighting equipment/ppe to attend Provincial Fire School. Analysis: There is nothing in the Fire Chief Regulations specific to training allowance benefits. There is reference, at Section (3), Sub-section (1), paragraph to the provision of a training program?, and there is ample evidence that the Spaniards Bay Volunteer Fire Department was in full compliance with this directive in its conduct of regular Thursday evening training sessions. Again, in the absence of detailed, properly documented allegations, of necessity I will have to assume that this allegation refers to FF Seymour?s request to attend Provincial Fire School at a time when Chief Hiscock was in the process oftrying to upgrade all members? First Aid training, and available funding would not accommodate both. Criticism has already been levelled at the Chief for allegedly violating the Regulations by responding to medical calls, the basis ofthe allegation being that members were not properly trained. Let us be reminded that Council authorized the Department?s response to motor vehicle accidents, emergencies which will, by their nature, necessitate knowledge in basic First Aid. It is, in my view, disingenuous to now allege that the Chief has violated the Regulations by his attempt to ensure that members were properly trained to respond to emergencies for which they were authorized, especially in view of the fact that the majority of calls received were to attend motor vehicle accidents. Faced with the financial reality of not being able to accommodate all wants and/or needs, Chief Hiscock and his executive made a decision that it was more important to upgrade First Aid training for all members than to sacrifice that in order to provide yet additional level of training to a firefighter who, at the time, was already the highest trained firefighter in the Department. If anything, it was a wise and proper use of budgeted training allowances. The second part of this allegation relates to the matter of a firefighter being refused access to Town firefighting equipment, i.e. Personal Protection Equipment, for training purposes, the reason being that a BA bottle had been lost while on similar training and the Chief, exercising his right to protect town property, simply took steps to ensure that it would not happen again. The allegation, on both levels, is unfounded. Allegation SIC): FAILURE TO DEPLOY DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL FOR MAXIMUM EFFECTIVENESS Explanation: Trained Firefighter Level on traffic duties, while untrained personnel directly on scene. Analysis: I think it is probably best to let firefighters themselves respond to the allegation regarding deployment of personnel, sequence of assignments to a particular scene, the rudimentary principal that firefighting is not a competition for position or status, but an exercise in teamwork and co-operation with the main objective being, after all, to deal with the emergency. As to traffic control itself, lest anyone, firefighter or otherwise, feel slighted by the notion of being asked to direct traffic at a fire scene, the aft mentioned Minimum Training Standards, Orientation Level states, at Section 2.14: Traffic at emergency scenes has become very dangerous to the firefigh ter. The public is often attracted to the excitement and are not watching out for firefighters operating near emergency scenes. The firefighter must be aware that traffic must be controlled in a safe manner to keep all emergency workers safe and not pose an undue risk to the public by causing traffic congestion. When working near traffic a firefighter shall make himself as visible as possible and be wearing appropriate equipment. Extreme care shall be taken at night and adverse weather conditions. Traffic movement and control should only be performed by personnel trained to do so?. The following observations, and/or comments, and/or opinions are not verbatim, but are taken from investigator?s notes, made either at the time of the interview, or made at a later date while listening to interview recordings. Question: What was the issue with the Level II training? Answer ?Brenda has Level ll training but the way you attend a scene is the first track goes with four (4), driver, incident commander, and two firefighters geared up in breathing apparatus. The second track and third track leave as members arrive. On one occasion, Brenda was on the third track and questioned why a Level ll had to do traffic. On another occasion, we had three on the first truck and Brenda came in as the fourth. -32- We waited for her to get aboard, and while we were waiting, another firefighter arrived and grabbed his gear and jumped on. When we got back to the fire hall, i asked Brenda what happened, and she said, don?t know what came over me?. I had no explanation other than that. A couple of times we went up to the smokehouse and we asked her to put her gear on. One time she had a bad shoulder and the next time she was on medication. I don?t know if that was just an excuse or if there was something wrong. On another occasion we had a fire call. Brenda was in the back and! was the o?icer in front. I turned around on the way and asked if everyone was ready to go. At the scene I opened the door and there was only one ?re?ghter. When I asked Brenda, she said her mask wouldn?t fit so I had to wait for another truc Brenda wouldn?t be the first one to find putting on the BA. and entering a hot scene di??icult. I can?t do it, and I know of other men who can?t to it. lsaw what she does. At the smoke house she couldn?t do it and in a heated house she couldn?t. If you are uncomfortable with the B.A., there are a lot of other jobs that need to be done, attending to a hydrant, hauling hose, First Aid, always something to do. Some can?t do the laws. Some can?t go on a roof. Some can?t operate the pumper. Some are fast with it others not. When on the pumper, you have to know the right pressure to use to feed water to the hoses. Some can do it, some can?t?. ?She had good paper qualifications, but I had no confidence in her as a firefighter. lsaw her take over a BA. position and not be able to go in. She said her mask wouldn?t fit but there was nothing wrong with her mask. In my opinion she backed out, and there is no shame in that. There are lots of jobs to be done such as filling B.A. tanks, traffic. You can?t leave your partner alone?. ?All the training in the world is no good if you can?t perform?. ?After your Minimum Standards were completed you were on probation for a year. There were restrictions such as not being allowed into a building. Victor always had control of that. ?Wait ?til your year is up? Victor told me. He was always by the book. have no idea where she comes up with these stories and no idea why, other than she wants control. I don?t know why everyone is afraid of her. You can?t say anything to her or you?ll end up in the Compass?. The Chief was a good, fair guy, and Brenda wasn?t left out of anything. One time we got a call and we had three in the pumper. We were waiting for one more. Brenda was getting on her gear, and Victor called to her a couple of times -33- While they were waiting, another firefighter arrived and was ready before she was so he jumped in the truck and they left. I don?t know ifshe can drive the truck. One time up on Veteran?s we asked her to move the truck and she couldn?t do it. Someone else had to move it? ?Victor was a good Chief. Good to the men. Good at the scene. Your job depended on when you arrived. There was always a job for someone whether that was getting hose, traffic, B.A. gear up. Some were not comfortable doing B.A. Brenda would gear up for B.A. but I never went in with her. I wouldn?t feel comfortable going in with her. She always seemed to have a problem getting a seal. No one else had that problem. i wouldn?t trust going in with her. There were a couple of other guys I didn?t know well enough?. . ?although Brenda has a lot of courses, she shies away from wearing breathing apparatus. have known her to wait for the first truck to leave so as not to have to wear ?Your job at the scene depends on when you actually get there. Unit 1 carries only four, and Unit 2 carries most of the gear for dealing with accidents and rescue. As far as know, every fire department operates the same way. You have to get the experience in order to do the job. Once you do your Minimum Standards you are on a one (1) year probation. After that, the Executive will take it to the body for a vote, take them in or let them go. After Minimum Standards, you are allowed to go to the scene. No fighting fires, but you can come in and help out however you can. It is a volunteer Department, so you use what you can. If the Chief has faith in them, he signs off on them. They are not allowed into a structure fire, but after it is put out, if they want, put the BA. gear on them. Take them in and let them get a feel for it. Then when the time comes, they know what to expect. That is the call of the Officer in charge, and it is all part of training?. ?That is ridiculous. Your role depends on when you arrive. The Chief has directed traffic. All do traffic. There are no set roles. Experienced people attack the fire?. would not be comfortable with Brenda. There were several occasions when she wouldn?t go in. At the smoke house, same thing. A lot of guys don?t want to wear the mask?. Personally, lhad no issues with Brenda. I found her to be a perfect firefighter. In training she would always do what she was asked. No one questioned her training. I mean what she was going on about being demoted to traffic. Any volunteer firefighter knows that just because you got more knowledge that you?re not going to replace someone with more experience. I?m sure that?s true for professional firefighters as well?. -34- the smoke house there was always an excuse, bad seal, bad arm. It wouldn?t fly if I made that excuse. Twice lsaw her take off her mask saying she had a bad seal. Why not just say, l?m not comfortable with that?? There is a task I can?t do, and I just told them lcan?t do it. That?s it. Shortcomings are overlooked. Everyone has their specialties. Some are good with the B.A., others with the attack line, some would rather do traffic. Usually the last truck out does tra??ic. Some are comfortable with driving or using the pump. Not everyone can use it. At aforestfire up on Seymour?s Road she left her buddy in the woods with a line. That is a very dangerous thing to do. She was never disciplined about it. The guy I left would have given me shit over it. When she was Council you couldn?t get a better person. Everything was fairly done. Back on Council, with a little bit of power, everything got stirred up?. ?New boys don?t drive the track. You can?t go inside without B.A. training. Help out with the tools, traffic, don?t do stupid ?Victor wouldn?t send a recruit into a fire. He wouldn?t put new people in harms way. Call for back up. Upper Island Cove or Bay Roberts if we needed help?. Clearly, there is no evidence that personnel were deployed for other than maximum effectiveness. There is no evidence presented that Level II training would have provided "maximum effectiveness? at this particular scene. Furthermore, we have no idea as to exactly what scene the complainant is referring, who these allegedly untrained personnel are, or what duties they were performing. Were they directly engaged in attacking the fire? Were they hauling hose, operating the pumper, attending a hydrant? Were they invited to view the scene for training purposes? Was it even a fire scene? And why is there an apparent assumption that traffic control was of less importance than any duty other personnel were engaged in? As is obvious from their comments, the vast majority of firefighters knew the rules, accepted the roles, and worked as a team for the good of the cause. If any firefighter, Level II or otherwise, was dissatisfied with his or her role on a particular call, it was never brought to the attention of his or her supervisor, or the Officer in Charge of the scene, to be dealt with through the Chain of Command. The allegation is unfounded. -35- Ailegation 6: Reported Allegations of Sexual Harassment, 8: Harassment in General There is no explanation provided on the document of allegations provided to Council, however, Councillor Seymour, in providing further detail at the November 16th meeting, advised on two occasions that the Allegation of Sexual Harassment was in relation to the showing of a hardcore pornographic film as part of the curriculum for a vehicle extrication course, alleging a misuse of power on the part of the Chief. Although the November 16th document references ?allegations?, there is no other evidence of another allegation. The first indication of a second allegation was contained in a CBC interview aired following the January 19th, 2016 resignations, and involved a comment allegedly made to FF Seymour when she went to the Chief looking for a Balaclava, or Nomex Hood, after hers had gone missing. I will assume that this is the second allegation of sexual harassment, and, as in other multiple allegations, each will be dealt with on an individual basis. Allegation Glal: The Video I rather doubt that the news of a firefighter in Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton, Newfoundland and Labrador, levelling charges of administrative shortcomings in the direction of her Fire Chief would have gained provincial and even national traction had they not been accompanied by allegations of sexual harassment. Clearly, and as stated by Councillor Seymour in her November 16th list of allegations, the focus of these allegations was the showing of a pornographic video clip at the conclusion of a vehicle extrication course (Jaws of Life) in April of 2014. Relative to the showing of the clip, there are two questions to be answered. First of all, does the displaying of the clip satisfy both the definition and judicial test of sexual harassment, and secondly, was Victor Hiscock, as Brenda Seymour alleges via various public media, 100% responsible for it. I am going to lower that bar somewhat, and answer the question of whether or not he was responsible to any extent for the showing of it. The story of the video and its aftermath within the Spaniards Bay/Tilton Volunteer Fire Department has never, to my knowledge, been told in its entirety. That is probably a good place to start. -35- In early 2014, the Department acquired a piece ofJaws of Life equipment, and, as is normal procedure, before being put into use, members were required to be properly trained in its operation. During the weekend of April 26th/27th, the Department, through its Training Officer, arranged for a Fire Chief from a neighboring Department to come to Spaniard?s Bay and instruct the course. The Spaniard?s Bay Recreation Center was chosen as the venue, and the majority of male members, as well as its lone female member, FF Seymour, attended. Following conclusion of the course, members were informed that they had passed the syllabus oftraining. At this point, the instructor was finishing up some paperwork and some course candidates were similarly engaged, some were talking among themselves, and others had started to clean up the hall. As all this was taking place, the instructor mentioned that he had an email that might not be appropriate to some, and that anyone who didn?t want to see it was free to leave. What was exactly said is unclear. In any event, it appears as if a caution of sorts as given that the clip was x-rated in nature and may be offensive to some. It also appears that there was a delay in the caution being given and the actual showing of the video. The clip itself was twenty (20) seconds in length. There was mixed reaction to it at time, and there is no need for any remark here, as firefighters comments will appear later in this analysis. Suffice it to say at this time, that the showing of the clip was, in the view of all the firefighters interviewed, inappropriate, disrespectful, and wrong. The showing of it was an error in judgment, and there neither was nor is there any attempt to either defend orjustify it. On May 2014, the Fire Department held its regular meeting and FF Seymour raised the subject of the video, stating that she was offended by it. Given the fact that these interviews took place some 2 V2 years later, there is some variance in actual content of the discussion which followed. There is, however, a consensus that Chief Hiscock apologized to her and told her that it would not happen again. At this time as well, he asked her if she wanted to take the matter any further, and there is evidence that the Chief also stated that he would support whatever she wanted to do. At this point, FF Seymour made it clear that she accepted the apology, was satisfied with that, and that she did not wish to take it any further. According to witnesses, there was further discussion as a couple of firefighters attempted to engage Brenda concerning her reaction and comment at the time, but Chief Hiscock put a stop to it, stating words to the effect that she wanted it dropped and that there would be no further discussion about it. -37- It is a credit to his candor and forthrightness during our interview that Victor Hiscock cannot recall making an apology as such, however, the evidence is clear that there was an apology made, and there was clarity in the fact that the matter had been raised, discussed, and dealt with to FF Seymour?s satisfaction. There are other facets of this part of the story worthy of comment, but at this time, the firefighters who were, after all, deeply affected by the allegations of sexual misconduct, need to have their say. Again, their comments are not verbatim, but are drawn from investigator?s notes, made either at the time of interview or during a later listening to interview recordings: The training was over and everybody was told they passed. The instructor said that he had an email if anyone wanted to see it, if you want to stay. If anybody would be offended by it, they could leave. The course was dismissed. It was maybe 5 -10 minutes later he put on the video. There was. talking and mingling while it was playing. I don?t remember much reaction to it. Next meeting, Brenda brought it up. Victor told her he was sorry, and asked her if she wanted us to go further with it. She said no, she was satisfied. It was brought up and dealt with. Do you want to go further? No, that?s fine. Next time it was brought up was in the media. There were three things mentioned, the video, the accident, and the medical call. Victor wasn?t there for two of it. When the video was played, everyone was surprised and then it was over. It shouldn?t have been played, but she was apologized to for it and accepted it?. ?No one know anything about sexual harassment until the day after everyone resigned. It was all about the video and the balaclava comment. Brenda brought it up the next week and Vic asked her where she wanted to go with it. Brenda said nowhere, she wanted it dropped. A couple of the boys started to discuss it but Vic said no, she wants it dropped. That?s it. Vic put a stop to it and Brenda wanted it dropped, but note made that she was upset by it. Next time I heard anything of it was on the news channel?. The video was played at the end of the training session. Some were cleaning up where we had been eating, the instructor was taking his stu?? down. He said he had one more video and ?icked on a dirty film. It was not appropriate. It was over before anybody could speak. Brenda laughed same as everybody else. Everyone was kinda stunned when it came on. When he mentioned it everyone thought that maybe he had forgot something. He said it was something off the Internet. Brenda?s husband, Martin, was not there. What upset Vic the most was when her son put something of Facebook that the Chief had arranged to show the video. Vic was very upset about that, after all the time and energy he had put into the Department. -33- Brenda said she was offended by the video. Vic said that is shouldn?t have happened and he apologized for it. He wanted to know ifshe wanted to leave it there or take it further. Brenda said no, she was satisfied with the apology and let?s leave it there. It made us look like a bunch of molesters, watching porn in the Fire Hall. Never happened?. . ?We had the course and it was over. The trainer said that the course was over and you all passed. There were guys picking up garbage when the movie was shown. This would be the porn movie that was shown at the end of the session. It was no more than twenty or twenty- five (20?25) seconds. What we heard was that when it was brought up in Council, they were told it was 8 minutes long. That was when it was brought up a year and a half or so later. What the word is, is that the firefighter involved, Brenda, wouldn?t pass the course ifshe didn?t watch the video, but that is not the case at all. It was brought up at the meeting and there was discussion about it. There was an apology made. I?m not sure if it was the Chief or the body as a whole, but it was all good at that point and was never mentioned until a couple of years later. That is what we couldn?t understand?. The video to me is when it all hit the fan. Brenda was not a Councillor at the time and she said she didn?t appreciate it. She was given a choice about whether to watch it or not. I?m not sure but! think we were getting something to eat. The course was over. The instructor told us we had done a goodjob, congratulations. He mentioned Brenda by name; you might not want to see this. Brenda said something like I?m a grown woman or I?m a big girl, something like that. I think Victor and Curt were cleaning up. They didn?t even see it. The thing was no more than a minute in total. I?m not sure. At the meeting the following Thursday Brenda brought up that she didn?t appreciate it. Victor apologized. Someone said something to her. The boys were asking her why she didn?t leave, and I think she was saying at the time that the course wasn?t over and the boys were saying no, Brenda, the course was over. You could do what you want. Like I said, she wasn?t in Council at the time, then when she got back in Council, the trouble started?. There was no need for her to go as far as she did. The video had nothing to do with us. It made us feel like dirtbags, sex offenders. There was no mention of the apology, nothing about that in the Compass. We wanted to respond but we were told to stay out of it. Ross tried to explain and he got one thing wrong. That was about Martin being there. That was it. Say 50 things right and get one wrong and that was all they talked about. All the good points were lost?. It was not appropriate. Brenda said first it was 8 minutes long, then 4. It went down from there to 18 or 20 seconds. The course was over. It was discussed in a meeting. Brenda was apologized to. Victor apologized. It was not brought up after?. -39- The training was over and everybody could go home. Someone asked him to play the video. He said no at first and would anyone mind. If anyone got any feelings on it you don?t have to stay. We were getting ready to leave and everybody sat down and watched it. It was probably a matter of minutes before it started. No big long time. I didn?t know what it was about. She was there and everyone was having a laugh. I can?t remember ifit was brought up in a meeting or not. The next thing I heard about it was on the news?. The person who showed the video was gathering up his stu?? to leave. He said the video was not part of training, and that it was an inappropriate video, and anyone who don?t want to see it can leave. The whole story was based on that video. In a regular meeting Brenda brought it up. She was upset about it, understandably so. I got upset when she said something about taking it to the media. lsaid to her that it had nothing to do with us and why would you take your own Department and put it down. Her exact words were, ?you know what I?m capable of?. Vic asked her what she wanted us to do. He apologized and said it won?t happen again. Brenda?s reply was no, I?m good. She put it in her pocket for a rainy day. That was the biggest thing that upset me about it. To this day, I got nothing bad to say about Brenda?. The video was the last nail in the co??in. In the Department meeting, other firefighters got pissed off and started arguing with Brenda. She watched the video like everyone else and when they started to argue with her, Victor wouldn?t have any of it and put a stop to it. He is a special man. He would do nothing to jeopardize the Fire Department. He would have stepped down until everything was resolved if asked?. Brenda brought it up at the meeting and said she was offended by it. Vic told her it was wrong, that he didn?t know it was going to happen. The video was less than a minute, but that doesn?t make it right. Vic made an apology, and asked Brenda ifshe wanted to take it further. Brenda accepted the apology and didn?t want anything else done?. Take the video for example. It was done by someone else but it should never have happened. Never. All of us will tell you it was not appropriate. No one knew at the time if they should speak up. The way it was Brenda wanted to be treated like one of the boys. That?s all she ever said. If the video hadn?t been shown, would Brenda have said in the next meeting that it wasn?t shown because she was a woman I can?t say that would have happened, can?t say that it wouldn?t. The only solution was not to play it. Would it have caused a backlash if treated differently? I don?t know. It obviously caused difficulty being played?. -90.. The video was wrong. Victor was just doing the course like everybody else but she felt that he was responsible, and she was hell bent on Vic taking the fall for it. At the meeting a week or so after it was discussed. To some it was no big deal. Others spoke up about it. There was a mixture of opinion when it was played. Some were shocked. Others chuckled. Victor asked Brenda ifshe would like to see something done. Brenda said no. He asked her specirficall y, and she answered, ?No, not at this time?. wasn?t therefor the video but I heard bits and pieces of it after. It was no big deal and not a hot topic. Everyone thought it was wrong, and when Brenda brought it up in the meeting and Vic made the apology, that was the end of it as far as everyone was concerned. She was asked ifshe wanted to take it further and she said no. What I couldn?t understand about it was the passage of time. It didn?t come out til January. Lots of time to think how it could be used. Ammunition?. Her husband was in the same Fire Department. How do you sexually harass someone with their husband there? If it was my wife, it would have been cleared up but there was nothing brought up in Council or in the Department at the time?. Training was over. The instructor said he had paperwork to finish and some of the boys kept tormenting him to show the video. He said that it was explicit, and if you were uncomfortable with it, you should leave. The video came on and there was some laughing and carrying on. I never saw it, and when I looked up the credits were coming on. There was some talking, some guys going through papers. Next meeting, as in every meeting, we go around the table. Brenda said she was offended by the video. She was asked why she didn?t leave. The Chief apologized to her and Brenda said it was the Chiefs responsibility to tell him to turn it off. The video was 19 seconds long, and by the time he would have stood up it would have been over anyway. There was more discussion over it and the Chief asked her did she want to go any further with it. She said no, she was gonna drop it. That was the end of it until I never had a chance to react to the video. When I went to the meeting, the Councillors told me it was all myfault. They told me that she had told them it was seven (7) to nine (9) minutes long and that she had to sit through it. She wasn?t at that meeting but came in later. He had a couple of videos after the course was over, and said something about no one being offended. He played the clip, comments were made, laughs and carrying on. Next meeting Brenda brought it up. She said she didn?t want to go any further with it, leave it there. Two or three of the boys wanted to speak about comments she had made at the time but I said leave it at that. It was not appropriate and shouldn?t have been done. [said lfelt bad about it and it wasn?t right. We all knew it wasn?t right. Two or three of the boys wanted to speak up but I shut it down. I took the flak for it. She doesn?t want to deal with it. Leave it there. -91- The most hurtful thing about it was when Brenda?s son put on Facebook that I had set the whole thing up. That is not me?. As has already been acknowledged, the showing of the video clip was wrong, and whether it was 2 seconds, 20 seconds, 20 minutes or any interval in between that does not change. What does change with the exaggeration in time and the misrepresentation of the context in which it was presented feeds the notion that its intent was other than as stated by the presenter, and I am well aware that a finding of harassment can be made even in circumstances where no harassment was intended. We have heard from the firefighters interview what the clip was. In the interest of balance, not to mention accuracy, let?s examine what it was not. It was not 5-6 minutes in length, as FF Seymour stated in an interview with CBC News on January 19th, before the Council meeting and subsequent mass resignation. Appendix refers. It was not part of the curriculum for the vehicle extrication course as FF Seymour stated on two occasions during presentation of her allegations of November 16th. It was not one of ?various instances of sexual harassment? as stated in The Compass in its report of January 20th, 2016. Appendix refers. It was the only instance outlined. It was not 7?9 minutes in length, as Victor Hiscock was told by Council during the privileged meeting of November It was not, as was stated in the National Post article of January 21?, an "attempt to get her to leave the course and jeopardize her chances for future training?. The course had ended. The Post article is attached as Appendix None of this is to suggest that the showing of the clip was anything other than what it was; inappropriate, unacceptable, an error in judgment, with the misinformation and assumptions doing their part to feed the media frenzy of post January 19th. As noted in firefighter comments, reference was made to the fact that FF Seymour could have left once she realized the offensive nature of the video clip. In retrospect, it is an easy matter to pontificate and opine that she should have left; the fact that she didn?t is not, in my view, a fair criticism. The video itself was 20 seconds long, and 20 seconds is not a great deal of time to absorb the initial astonishment of what is being seen, process an appropriate reaction, including the possible consequences of any initiative, and follow through with the appropriate action. -92- i rather suspect that FF Seymour?s reason for not leaving was very similar to Chief Hiscock?s reason for not intervening, bearing in mind that in that same 20 seconds he would have had to follow a similar thought process. in the final analysis, the allegation of whether or not the showing of the video satisfies the conditions of sexual harassment lies in the legal definition of the term, and how that definition has been applied by various Courts and Tribunals. The Sexual Harassment Policy, adopted by The Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Council on August 22nd, 2005 defines harassment as behaviour that embarrasses or humiliates a person and that a reasonable person should have known to be unwelcome. It includes offensive comments related to sex or conduct such as touching or displays of inappropriate materials, such as posters of a sexual nature". The Policy further states are encouraged to speak up if someone behaves in a way that offends, humiliates, or degrades them. Tell the person responsible the behaviour is inappropriate. If the behaviour continues, report the matter to a manager, or, where appropriate, file a formal complaint?. The ordinary dictionary meaning of ?harass? is ?to annoy persistently?, reference Mirriam Webster?s Deluxe Dictionary, Tenth Collegiate Edition, the operative term being persistence, with the obvious connotation that one incident does not constitute harassment. The Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission "Guidelines on Sexual and Gender Based Harassment in the Workplace? would appear to support this definition of harassment. While the term ?sexual harassment" is not found or defined in the Human Rights Act, 2010, the term ?harass?, as defined at Section 2(j) of the Act is as follows: to engage in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. The Guideline further states that sexual harassment usually requires a course of conduct of sufficient seriousness and repetition to detrimentally affect the work environment. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Human Resources Policy Manual in its section titled ?Harassment and Discrimination Free Workplace Policy (Creating a Respectful Work Environment)? defines harassment in part ?any objectionable conduct, comments, or displays made either on a one-time basis or on a continuous basis that demeans or belittles the employee?. -93- Notwithstanding that policies enacted by government as well as companies allow for single incident harassment complaints, human rights tribunals, arbitrators, and Courts at various levels have generally held to the view that harassment, sexual or otherwise, is usually characterized by multiple incidents of offensive conduct. That is not to say that harassment could not occur as a result of a single incident, however that incident would have to be so egregious as to allow for no other conclusion. In the showing of the video clip, one of two scenarios would have to be satisfied in my view; the first being that FF Seymour was forced to watch, and the second that the video was part of the course curriculum, with the obvious inference that viewing of it was requisite to passing the course. Clearly, the evidence on both levels points very much in the opposite direction. I have also considered the following case law pertaining to the issue of whether the definition of "harassment? has been satisfied: Matthews Memorial University of Newfoundland (1991 15C. H.R.R. 0.399 (a?irmed on appeal Memorial University of Newfoundland v. Matthews (1994) 22 C. H. R. R. 0.354 Nfld. 5 C. T. 0. a Newfoundland Board of Inquiry commented on the term ?harass? in this way: Subsection 2(9) of the Code defines harassment as to engage in a course of vexations comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. The Legislature has therefore established a twofold test which must be applied to the fact situation in order to determine whether or not an individual has been the subject of harassment. The first portion of the test is subjective and requires a determination as to whether the course of comment or conduct was vexatious to the complainant. It is the position of this Board that a course of comment or conduct implies something more than an isolated incident, and this position is consistent with the findings in Boehm v. National System ofBaking Ltd. (1987)8 C.H.R.R. 0/4110 (Ont. Bd. lnq.) and a decision of a Newfoundland Board of Inquiry in Aavik v. Ashbourne (1990) [reported 12 C. H. RR. 0/401]. There is no evidence that Victor Hiscock had any foreknowledge of the content of the video, nor is there any evidence to support the scurrilous Facebook comment that the Chief had arranged for the showing of the video clip; for the reasons previously stated, it is not reasonable to assume that he had sufficient time to react, process, and follow through on a course of action to stop it. There is evidence to support the fact that, pursuant to the terms of the Sexual Harassment Policy for the town of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton, FF Seymour properly raised the matter in the Fire Department meeting of May 2014. There is evidence that Chief Hiscock issued an apology and there is evidence that Brenda Seymour accepted that apology. There is evidence that Chief Hiscock asked FF Seymour if she wished to take the matter further, and there is evidence that she wanted the matter dropped at that point. -94- In the face of a copious amount of evidence to the contrary, and indicative of the misinformation abundant in media coverage ofthis story, is a rather disturbing quote from The Star. corn, dated January 22nd, 2016: In 2014, Seymour said she complained to the department?s executive board, including the chief, after she says she was shown a porn video during a training session. But neither the chief nor other members of the executive responded to her complaints, she said. ?Never to date have I ever gotten an apology?, she said?. The article is attached as Appendix It would appear that the Chief?s handling of the situation was reasonable and in accordance with FF Seymour?s wishes, and, as outlined in Issues Discussion Re: The Culture, at Section it is reasonable to conclude that once resolved satisfactorily, the organization could put the issue behind them and move on. There is no evidence to support the statement that Victor Hiscock was 100% responsible. That statement is, based on the evidence available, 100% inaccurate, and responsibility for the showing falls squarely where it has always been, to the individual who, to his regret, pushed ?play?. Since it was a onetime incident, and there is no evidence of a "course of vexatious conduct? directed towards Brenda Seymour by the individual who played the clip, an allegation of sexual harassment falls well short of the necessary ingredients to show, on a balance of probabilities, that harassment occurred. The allegation is unfounded. -95- Allegation 61b): The Balaclava Comment In media interviews post January FF Seymour made reference to an alleged comment made by another firefighter relative to a balaclava, or Nomex Hood, a standard piece of equipment worn to protect the portion of the head not covered by the helmet or face mask. As related by Ms. Seymour, her own hood went missing and she went to the Chief looking for a replacement. There were no new ones on hand, however, in his office, the Chief kept a box of various miscellaneous items, i.e. hoods, gloves, flashlights, either surplus inventory or items which had shown up as lost and found items within the station. The evidence is that the Chief and another firefighter who was in the office started to rummage through the box. They eventually found a hood, and, as the Chief was handing it to her, having regard for where it had come from, i.e. a box containing used clothing, he said words to the effect of, ?Brenda, you might want to take that home and wash it, you don?t know where that has been?, to which one of the other firefighters, a practical joker with a penchant for off the cuff comment, added ?Yes, someOne might have jerked on that?. There was no other comment made and no apparent reaction to what was said. None of those present gave it a second thought until media interviews and print media comments attributed to FF Seymour reported the comment as, ?Brenda, you might want to go home and wash that. Wejerked all over it?. The firefighter who made the comment acknowledges that it was rude, crude, and should never have been made. He does, however, take issue with the fact that if it was so offensive, he should have been taken to task for it at the time, or, at the very least, a complaint should have been made through the executive. He questions why, if nothing was done or said at the time, the next mention of it was in an interview with CBC news. It was, in fact, such a non-issue that the first time most members of the Department heard of it was through the media. It is his opinion that his words were altered to make them look like ?dirt bags?. Admitedly, he is, ?no angel, but there is a big difference in what I said and what she said lsaid?. The comment was, ?put in her back pocketfor use down the road?, and, because he is the Chief?s brother, it was, "just another way to get at Vic?. In the context of where it was made, firefighters who did comment on it said that there was nothing unusual in the fact that such a close knit group took great delight in throwing insults and verbal darts at one another, referring to it as ?razzing?, ?ribbing?, and ?old foolishness?. There is no evidence that there was anything vitriolic, acrimonious, or malicious in it, and in the context of office banter it is NOT harassment. The Sexual Harassment Policy for the Town of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton addresses similar comment thus: -95- office bantering back and forth where everyone is in valved is in agreement is not harassment, however, if one person enters the group and is uncomfortable with this exchange and others should have known the person was uncomfortable, then the banter becomes harassment. Employees are encouraged to speak up if someone behaves in a way that offends, humiliates, or degrades them. Tell the person responsible the behaviour is inappropriate?. There is no evidence that FF Seymour expressed any concern about this alleged comment or any other comment that may have been made during Fire Department activities. In fact, there is evidence that FF Seymour was equal and quite capable in the cut and thrust of discussion, debate, and argument, and there is evidence that she was an active participant in the practical jokes and repartee which often goes to relieve the pressures and stress associated with such a high risk occupation. I fully realize that any discourse to attempt to put allegations into their proper perspective in terms of severity, impropriety, circumstances, and context, will be met with a degree of opposition, the assumption being that the investigator is somehow attempting to justify or excuse the comment. Fair enough, but in order to explain the apparent disconnect between a policy definition of harassment and a judicial finding which does not appear to support that definition, I will refer to the publication entitled ?Human Resources Guide to Workplace Investigations?, co?authored bylanice Rubin and Christine M. Thomlinson, and published by Canada Law Book. The authors provide a list of workplace behaviours suggestive of personal harassment. The list is not exhaustive but it does give an idea of what would generally be included in a successful complaint of harassment. The list includes: Shouting, Profanity and abusive language, Use of violent language, Use of props suggestive of violence, Throwing objects or slamming doors, Persistent practical jokes where one person is the object of the joke, Isolation and shunning, Gossip, rumors, negative blogging, and cyberbullying, Retaliation, Unsubstantiated criticism, Unreasonable demands, Blow ups and eruptions, especially behind closed doors, Insults and name calling, Physical contact and violence. -97- Harassment is generally a pattern of harassment often involves groupings of these behaviours. That being said, one very serious instance of violent language, or an angry outburst might be enough to initiate and substantiate a complaint of personal harassment. Clearly, this comment falls well short of what could be categorized as violent language or an angry outburst. That view is shared as well in the Guide for Determining What Constitutes Harassment. Source: Treasury Board of Canada, listing what generally constitutes harassment, what may constitute harassment, and what does not generally constitute harassment. Listed under what does not generally constitute harassment single or isolated incident such as an inappropriate remark or abrupt manner? Clearly, The Balaclava Comment falls within that definition and is consistent with previous Case Law citations quoted in 6(a) The Video, as it refers to ?a course of vexations comment or conduct? As stated in Section 2 of this report, the investigator will not consider the credibility of any person in the absence of evidence that directly relates to the credibility of that person. I have no reason to assess the credibility of either Victor Hiscock or his brother. In my view, any evidence contrary to their version of the comment is either misunderstood, misrepresented, or simply miscommunicated. Furthermore, the assumption of what is implied is absurd, since there is no evidence that it or anything resembling it happened. Clearly, the assumption fed into the grist mill of rumor and innuendo being made at the time. I could end the discussion at this point, however, I have to take issue with media coverage referring to ?her? equipment or ?her? balaclava. The balaclava was not known to belong to anyone. it was retrieved from a box containing other unclaimed items, origin unknown. That would tend to support the referenced comment to, ?you don?t know where that has been?, as opposed to any reference to the balaclava as ?hers?. I don?t wish to belabour the matter, but I have to comment on the subtleties of how a misplaced word can change the whole meaning of a comment. After all, great personal embarrassment has been caused over the allegation that the comment made was not, ?someone might have jerked on that?, rather ?we jerked all overit?, as was reported in FF Seymour?s CBC interview ofJanuary 20th. In The Star.com article ofJanuary 22nd, the comment attributed to her was, ?a colleague told her that other firefighters had masturbated on her equipment?. Yet another media article, The National Post article ofJanuary 21?, recites it as ?fellow firefighters who tell her that they masturbated on her equipment?. -93- So, what is it? Four (4) versions of a comment which was made only once, including three (3) different versions attributed to the same person, from supposedly reputable media outlets at that. is the comment being misrepresented to suit the moment, is it being unwittingly embellished in the re?telling, or, as is more likely, is it simply an issue of miscommunication? More to the point, does anyone seriously believe that the comment, whatever it was, in the context of a balaclava being retrieved at random from a box of used equipment, could possibly have been taken as offensive towards any firefighter in particular? In evaluating the severity of the comment, I refer to another comment, one attributed to FF Seymour, to one of her male colleagues. The circumstances of the disclosure of the comment was in answer to a question of whether he had witnessed any incident of what to him was harassment. He answered that he had, towards himself. The quote is not verbatim, but is referenced to in investigator?s notes, made while listening to a recorded interview: was when the Department started up back after January. We were doing some training on the pamper up at Holy Redeemer School. Brenda got Martin to do the training with the pamper. Brenda got in the driver?s side and someone else started to get in. Brenda made the remark for me to ?Come over we haves a cuddle? something like that. ldon?t know ifshe was just joking or not, but after what she just put us through, I didn?t like it?. I have no doubt that FF Seymour was joking, taking part in the office banter and humor, which is, whether we like it or not, whether we accept it or not, and whether we acknowledge it or not, systemic to any organization. Similarly, I have no doubt that the balaclava comment was made in a similar vein, and while that in and if itself does not preclude the possibility of a finding of harassment, it has to be analyzed in totality with other factors, which are: - There is no evidence of a history of offensive comment directed towards FF Seymour by the person who made the comment. - It was a single, inappropriate remark. There is no evidence of a ?course of vexatious comment or conduct? directed towards Brenda Seymour by the individual who made the comment. - There is no evidence to assess the credibility of the person who made the comment, and his version is clearly the most reasonable. The comment does not satisfy the standard required to satisfy a finding of harassment, and the allegation is unfounded. -99- SECTION 6 PROMOTION (0R Although not put forth as a specific allegation on November 16th, mention is made in subsequent media coverage of FF Seymour being overlooked for promotion, and the inference is clear that her gender and her dedication were key contributing factors. The gender issue has already been dealt with. See Issues Discussion, Section of this report. In the event that it needs to be stated again, there was no evidence of gender bias within the Department. Any evidence of early gender bias has long since dissipated and passed into the archives as history. Let it go. The system of promotion has already been dealt with. See Analysis and Findings, Section 5, allegation Failure to Maintain a Program of Promotion of Personnel, of this report. While I am, again, about to quote from interview notes and even a newspaper article relative to the real reason, as supported by the evidence, why she was not elected to an Executive position, it is helpful to note comments made by firefighters at Section 5, allegation Failure to Deploy Department Personnel for Maximum Effectiveness, since those comments are pertinent to the matter of non-election as well. During the course of this investigation, reference was made on several occasions to the two systems of filling positions to the Fire Department executive. The first is the Democratic system being used during Victor Hiscock?s tenure as Chief. The second is the current system adopted following the January resignations and subsequent re-formation, that being the Chief selecting his own Executive. Although nominated for several Executive positions over the years, Ms. Seymour did not garner sufficient votes for election. The reality of the Democratic system of electing officials to any office, public or otherwise is that there are winners and there are, unfortunately, losers. Along with gender and dedication, what has been referred to as the ?buddy system? has been alleged as a factor in these elections. Could the buddy system be a factor in the elections? Certainly. It must be remembered, though, that when electing leaders, members were conscious of the fact that they were also electing someone who may, at some point, be responsible for their safety at an emergency scene. Could the buddy system be a factor in the selections? Certainly. It must be remembered, though, that when selecting leaders, the Chief has to be conscious of the fact that he has to work closely with his executive, and sometimes, best friends don?t always translate into best leaders. In addition, selections may be made for far more pragmatic reasons than mere qualifications. -100- The other positive mentioned with regard to the election system was that it gave all firefighters a sense of ownership over the operation of the Department. is true that the buddy system played a factor when it came to elections. You also have to remember that the fellows who showed up for practice every Thursday night were the ones who were going to be picked. Brenda?s attendance at practice was poor, and even when she came back from fire school, she was supposed to share what she had learned. She never did?. was there for training every Thursday night. The last 2 years, Brenda did very little training. She would always show up for the first Thursday when we?d have our meeting, but attendance at training was not good?. the training officer you need someone who is going to be there every Thursday night. Brenda was upset she never got Executive positions. She wasn?t there often enough. Her training attendance was down. She had good attendance at the meeting?. couldn?t get a position in the Fire Department. I voted against her because I didn?t think she was qualified. Her qualifications were on paper only?. ?All the training in the world is no good if you can?t perform. She should know what she?s at. She?s going to get someone hurt with that B.A. She is. It?s going to happen. I told Curt, ?She?ll be after you if you piss her off??. have been there for 15 years. It is second nature to them. When that truck rolls to a stop, rGo do it. You do this, you do that?. One time we were short and Brenda asked in a meeting what to do. Call Bay Roberts, the Chief used to say, if you need backup, call. Who is the senior person? He is the one in charge?. missed a lot of Thursday nights and never did a lot of training. She got the certificates going to fire school and she figured she was qualified because she had the papers, but you got to be showing up to practice on Thursday nights. If you are going to say you can do those things, first of all you got to get respect from people. You got to be able to prove it. One incident I witnessed we were on our way to a call. I had my B.A. on and she couldn?t get her straps right. She was getting really frustrated. I told her to calm down, take your time Brenda. She said she couldn?t get a seal on her mask. She eventually did, but we didn?t have to go in anyway. I think the Chief and Assistant Chief checked the mask to see if it was faulty, but don?t know what came out of it. I never heard tell of not being able to get a seal before. If you have facial hair, that will do it, but it is really just a matter of tightening the straps. You do a little test then to see if you have air.? -101- what you had was a Level II firefighter who wanted to talk the talk but not walk the walk. Wreak havoc because of what, ifshe don?t get the Chief position. Everyone always said she?s going for the Chiefs position. Some are born leaders. Others are not. She wanted a ranking position. The buddy system came into play, but with 30 members you had to have that trust and friendship. You got to trust the guy. Did a lot trust her? Eroded relationships from the past, whatever happened back then. Once you erode your relationship, it is doomed from the start?. don?t recall exactly what Ms. Seymour was nominated for but she was nominated for some things. And would I vote for her. No. lfshe?s got all this training. If she got stacks of papers, training, and she?s not bringing that forward. We got new guys. Guys that got young families, so they?re going to be here for a while. And she got all this training, but was she bringing it forward Absolutely not. She?s not there trying to make things better. I mean, why would you want to put someone in office ifyou didn?t think they were going to show up and do something for you. just tell it like it is. I wouldn?t belittle anyone. That?s not what I?m here for?. I joined the Fire Department I rarely missed a practice andl was always there for calls. Over time I don?t know if you lose interest or there are other priorities, but one thing I noticed was Ms. Seymour missed a lot of practices. She was rarely there. I don?t know if people were afraid of her or what, but she never seemed to show up at practices or functions. Never there. And I?m showing up at practice and they are off doing whatever. She is a very qualified individual, but didn?t want to get up and show things to other people. Maybe she lacked the confidence, but she always had something to say, never something to show. You lose respect for people like that after a while, people who are always running their mouth, but never get out to show some guidance. A level II firefighter, qualified, but never wanted to get up and show people like me what I needed to know. You don?t really need to be asked to show people. They would set up a course in the fire station, turn off the lights and put the B.A. on. She had no problem telling the book side of what she knew, but never wanted to show. Guys would show up, more hands on, would show you. With Brenda, things she should be taking charge of, she wasn?t sure to do when you got there?. Finally, a quote from the January 21St issue of the National a personal issue between Victor (the Chief) and her, and she?s using her council powers against the department,? said Cory Mahaney, one of the resigned firefighters, who added that Seymour is trying to spin the whole conflict into a ?gender issue?. ?She thinks it?s because she?s a female that she?s not being put in the position of assistant chief or captain or lieutenant, but the reason is that the boys know she hasn?t got the confidence?, he said. -102? Seymour is one of the highest trained firefighters in the department, having obtained Level II certification, the amount needed to become a professional firefighter. But Mahaney says the skills are just ?on paper?. A letter circulated around Spaniard?s Bay by Mahaney says that twice, Seymour reported being unable to attend to an emergency because of a faulty breathing mask. The mask, he says, was later found to be fully functional. haven?t got any faith in that girl whatsoever,? he said?. Clearly, issues ofjob performance and trust played major roles in the fact that Firefighter Seymour was never elected to an Executive position in the Department. Certainly, she is to be commended for achieving the level of training that she has, but she had not demonstrated to her colleagues the important next step of practical application of her training where it mattered most, at an emergency scene. The examples quoted to me by the firefighters interviewed were not related in a spirit of vindictiveness, and they have been included in this narrative for no other reason other than to convey their reasoning, as related to me, for her non-election to a position of higher responsibility in the Department. Actually, there is another reason why that category of comment has been included in this report. FF Seymour herself cemented my logic in the previously referred to National Post article of January 21?, Once you know these things you can?t unknow them, and it kind of makes you guilty if you don?t come forward with it?. After hearing so many accounts of FF Seymour?s struggles with the wearing of Breathing Apparatus, my own sense of guilt would be to attempt to ?unknow? what has been relayed to me, then to hear of a tragedy in which performance with the wearing of Breathing Apparatus was a factor, to any degree. As several firefighters have said, there is no shame in not being able to perform each and every task within the fire service. As in any other profession, individuals have their as well as their challenges. Some firefighters are simply not comfortable with the wearing of the B.A., one stated that he could not operate the laws of Life. To my surprise, I was told that there are firefighters averse to heights, others not comfortable at accident scenes, and so on. While there is no shame in being challenged, there is risk in declaring oneself prematurely ready. Several had concerns that anything they might say of a negative nature would be viewed as malicious or vengeful. Several acknowledged that the buddy system played a part in the voting process, however, the overwhelming sense of the reason were the simple issues of trust, confidence, and performance. -103- SECTION 7 - IN CONCLUSION Section 1(c) of this report stated as follows: At issue is simply whether or not, between 2011 and January of 2016, behaviour of the members of the Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton Volunteer Fire Department meet the definition of harassment, bullying, or intimidation. To the question of harassment, while there is evidence of heated discussion and aggressive debate, particularly in the Fire Department meetings, there is no evidence to satisfy a ?course of vexatious comment or conduct? directed towards any one individual or individuals within the Department. There is evidence that comments made during the course of debate at meetings sometimes crossed the line into disrespect, but again, no one individual was singled out or targeted. In addition, and there is no way to diplomatically state it, the evidence suggests that FF Seymour herself was not averse to the making of such remarks. There is evidence of rising tension as firefighters unsuccessfully sought answers as to why they were coming under such scrutiny in Council, why Fire Department business was finding its way back to Council without being brought through the Chain of Command at the Fire Department, why issues which should have come to them through official channels were coming to them from various sources both within and outside the community, and, most disturbing of all, why there was clearly an active campaign to remove their Fire Chief. Specific to FF Seymour?s allegations, there is no evidence in her relationship to her colleagues to suggest that she ever felt as being anything other than equal, and there is no evidence to suggest that in their behaviour towards her, other firefighters treated her other than as an equaL In fact, on the one occasion when she did voice a concern, that being the showing of the video clip, her concern was addressed her view was respected, she was issued and accepted an apology, and there was no indication other than that the matter had been appropriately resolved. As tothe two (2) documented incidents, i.e. the video and the balaclava comment, two incidents in five (5) years falls far short of a ?pattern of behaviour? as media comment would have us believe, similarly falling short of being a systemic issue within the Department. -104? To the issues of bullying and intimidation, there is no evidence to support those behaviours within the confines of the Fire Department. Let us remember that Chief Hiscock ran his Department as a Democracy, where personal opinion and viewpoints were encouraged. At the end of each meeting, individual firefighters were given the opportunity to speak, and, as in any Democratic system of procedure, take our own legislature as an example, debate invariably, on occasion, crossed the line. There is evidence that in such circumstances, the Chief brought matters to a halt and steered proceedings in a proper direction. Specific to Firefighter Seymour, there is no evidence in documentation, media or otherwise, to support any allegation of being bullied or intimidated by any other Firefighter. In fact, the evidence suggests that Chief Hiscock regularly reminded his members of the importance of respect and deportment, particularly at emergency scenes. There is a reference in one media article to Chief Hiscock and ?intimidating body language?. find that reference, quite frankly, amusing, since it runs totally contradictory to his character as described by his former colleagues and others to whom I have had conversation with during the course of this investigation, people who have known him for many years. From my own observations, after spending some time with him, it would be a significant stretch to describe any aspect of his demeanour as intimidating. In retrospect, the evidence gathered during the course of this investigation points to a ?perfect storm? of circumstances surrounding the evolution of this story. The campaign to unseat the Chief, with its well?placed rumors and accusations, during the latter months of 2015 certainly laid the groundwork for discontent within the Department and the community, a campaign coming to a head in earnest with the September 28th rejection of the names put forward by the Chiefas having completed their Minimum Training Standards, Orientation Level. The November 2nd Council privileged meeting with the Chief was, in my view, wanting on any number of levels, and needs no further comment; the public Council meeting of November 16th left no doubt as to the goal and purpose of the Campaign. Council started a positive action on December 7th, with the decision to engage a Human Resources firm to conduct an inquiry in an effort to ascertain if there was any basis to the allegations, a move, incidentally, welcomed both by Fire Department personnel and the community at large. That hope was dashed a week or so later with the cancellation of the inquiry, just as it was about to begin, leaving matters to simmer for another month, leading up to the January 19th resignation of Sheri Collins, followed by the Firefighter resignations. The culmination of the ?perfect storm? were the January 20th allegations of sexual harassment, combined with the false assumption that the allegations were the impetus for the resignations, with the resulting firestorm of media, both mainstream and social, and all the accompanying opinion and vitriol expressed. -105- have left the final part ofthis narrative to a veteran firefighter who, near the conclusion of our interview, was asked simply if he had any closing comments. Obviously a quiet, methodical, thoughtful individual, his comments, touching on a number of issues, encapsulated the gist of what many had to say. His words, with only one or two questions breaking into his reflection, are transcribed verbatim: ?Funny how she couldn?t be perceived to be in a conflict of interest being a councillor and firefighter unless she was getting some type of monetary gain, which is what I understand. She was always involved in both. She would never, just for the sake of clarity, say she was in conflict and steer away from anything. But now, all of a sudden, when she came to find out that this inquiry, I?ll say, is going ahead, she wants no part of it because she?s going to be in a conflict of interest, which is totally contradictory. It seems to me, in my opinion, she wanted Victor?s head. I know this whole thing, and you?re probably going to get it from a lot of people, it seems like a one person bashing kind of thing. But in my opinion, and it?s just speaking for me, it?s not. What I?m telling you is as I see it. I recall one particular time, in reference to the sexual harassment thing, and I don?t recall now if it was a practice or meeting, but you know what it?s like and all the crowd gets around, and there was joking and carrying on. I don?t recall if it was a practice or meeting. The topic of conversation may have been a little bit vulgar, let us say. The particular member who was talking, and this was a few years back, he sort of realized, the member forgot and said, ?Sorry, Brenda I didn?t know you were there?, or words something like that. Her reply was, ?Oh, don?t worry about that. You don?t have to worry about that with me. I?m just one ofye when I?m here?. And that stands so clear in my mind after hearing all the stuff that she?s after saying in the media and to everybody since, right. It just goes totally against the way she was then and now and it?sjust what blows me away. It seems to be a thing of convenience for her. To use now. I take it very seriously. Any type of sexual allegation. lgot (reference deleted) like I said and I got (reference deleted) and I would be upset if anything was said around them, but it seems like at the time it was dealt with at a meeting. It was put to bed. It was accepted by her at the time, and Victor more or less said we want this to end. Is it o.k. And she said ?yes?, and what was it, two years later, when it seems convenient to pull out that card it?s there, and it just seems so unfair to him, and so unfair to all those people. Even ones who weren?t therefor the video are guilty by association. I?ve been to places away, and people say where are you from? And I?ve got to the point I say I?m from Conception Bay North. Not that I?m ashamed of where I?m from but I just got tired of having to explain and the question and answer period that would come with it. -106- And there?s other times I?ve said live in Spaniard?s Bay, and my response would be, and before you ask, yes, I was one of the ones that resigned, but here?s the story?. It seems to me like I can recall one time in a meeting, whatever the debate was about, she would always have to have the last word. She would provoke people, and there?s just no need of it. One member, one time there was a bit of an argument about an issue, back and forth and he said something which she didn?t agree with and she made some snide remark to him which really upset him and he jumped up from the table. I don?t know what he would have done, but Victor stepped left. He had to because I?m sure it would have escalated, but I don?t know. I know I?m coming off as sounding like someone who is bashing this person but I?m just telling it as I see it. It has nothing to do with female, male, it doesn?t matter. It?s just things that I?ve witnessed, and how I see it, and how unfair this whole thing has turned out to be. You know, like I say, you do your best, do what you can do, and in the end you just get a bad name. And it?s not calledfor. And this is the whole idea ofpushing to have some kind of inquiry. Hope that somebody gets to the bottom of things, you know?. Q. What do you want to see come out of it? A. I?d like the truth to come out, and I very well understand it may not come out the way we would like it to or prefer it to be, but I would like to see some sort of recognition that we all aren?t sexual harassers, we?ll say. That we all aren?t tarred with the one brush. That Council, ldon?t know how, or how they would do it, that they come out with some type of public apology or some type of public recognition just to let people know there?s stu?? that has not been done properly. There?s people who had stuff done through no fault of their own. Pretty much somehow get your name back, because we all got some sort of reputation, and as far as I?m concerned it just gets ruined with this sort of stuff?. 0.. Is the hurt still there? A. ?Absolutely, yeah. It doesn?t go away and it probably never will, but like you say, you do what you can, and this is what you get in return. It does hurt. And I understand the way things to, you don?t want to come off like, what would you call it, victim bashing, we?ll say. Sometimes it turns out that way, like if in the Council comes out and says, well, maybe some of what she said wasn?t proper. We?re going to recognize that some things weren?t done right. Is the media going to hit it again and say that you?re going to re?victimize this person, that this person had to su?er these allegations in the past, and now Council is coming out and saying it wasn?t right what happened and making a victim out of her again. That?s the fear there, too. -107- I hope nothing comes out of it. I?m not outfor revenge or blood. ljust would like some type of wrong that has been done to be somehow fixed, admitted to or, ldon?t know how that could be done. That would be up to them. You understand how things are when it hits the media, especially when you only get one side, and of course everyone jumps on the bandwagon, and you got everybody coming from every other place around that don?t know the full story, and you get all these posts on Facebook and on all the lnternet. They hear her side. They see her interview. She?s telling her side. None of us really came out saying much about it for that reason. Like, here?s our chance now. There?s no way to put it back the way it was. As you know, there?s no way you could avoid knowing about it. We were the spotlight for weeks and weeks across the country, and all anybody could see was that bunch in the Fire Department and look what they done to that poor woman, which is totally unfair. was going to say to you the only things I ever heard was the video and the balaclava comment, the only thing that have heard of happening. There?s nothing I can think of that she claimed anybody ever said to her, did, or anything like that. And again, the video incident had nothing to do with our Department. It was an outside person that came in. Doesn?t make it right. We all admitted that it definitely wasn?t appropriate. Shouldn?t have happened. It did, and we can only try to deal with it after. Which it was. And it was supposed to have been put to bed. And we all thought it was until two years later. I think she knew the amOunt of mileage she would get out of doing that. From what I understand, she?s the one who contacted the media. She knew what this would bring as far as I?m concerned. It?s unfortunate, but it?s done, and here we are?. Here we are, indeed. The Issues Discussion section of this report, at Section concluded with the half question, half musing comment of fully one year later, Victor Hiscock, as well as both former and current members of the Fire Department are left to wonder what, if anything, they did to warrant the scathing level of criticism levelled against them. The answer, quite frankly, is nothing. -108- SECTION 8 - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION It is encouraging to see that the Spaniards Bay/Tilton Volunteer Fire Department has adopted a Policy Manual covering Code of Ethics, Harassment Policies, and Disciplinary Procedures, among other functions. Several of the areas of recommendation which would have come from this report have already been implemented, and have clearly addressed some of the defiant, undisciplined, and, in my view, mutinous behaviour evident during the Fall of 2015. Listed in the Discipline Procedures and Special Rules are behaviours punishable by suspension or discharge for such violations as: Insubordination or disrespect towards a superior officer. Publicly criticizing or unjustly treating any member of the department. and, Communicating any information concerning the affairs of the department without the consent of the Department Head. it is unfortunate that the recommendation from Gerald Hiscock?s 2010 report, that a Policy and Procedure Manual be put in place, was not implemented at the time. Had it been, Chief Hiscock and his executive would have had the mechanism to control events long before they spiralled out of control in the manner that they did. Despite the positive developments there is, I believe, still room for additional measures. -109- RECOMMENDATION NO. 1: The Council of The Municipality of Spaniard?s Bay/Tilton has traditionally appointed a member of Council to act as Liason with the Fire Department, the purpose being to keep the lines of communication open between the two entities. Again, hearkening back to Gerald Hiscock?s report, this role was described by him as vital. He also made the remark that he/she must maintain objectivity, and outlined quite the risks associated with no liaison in place. In its March 14th, 2016 meeting, Councillor Seymour tabled a motion calling for suspension of Council Liaison, with Fire Chief Curt Roberts assuming that function. According to The Compass of March 15th, Councillor Seymour stated that the suggestion came from the Chief himself. Speaking on behalf of the Chief, she added that he wanted to eliminate the chances of any communication breakdown. With all due respect, communication was not the issue, particularly at the Council Liason level. Elements of disrespect certainly played a major role. The previously stated Policy Manual, now in force at the Department, states in its section covering Conflict of ?Information that is learned in the course of employment remains the intellectual property of the Employer. No member shall, at anytime, make public, or provide to the media information gained from their employment without the prior permission of the Department Chief?. With all due respect, Chief Roberts is not a member of Council, and cannot possibly be expected to be present at every Council meeting. If that is the case, will Councillor Seymour or any future Councillor/Firefighter be authorized by the Chief to speak on matters pertaining to the Department? If so, then that person becomes the de facto Council Liaison. That is, in my view unacceptable, a blurring of the roles, and a clear violation or previously discussed Conflict of Interest guidelines. If not, then that person is clearly in violation of the Department?s Conflict of Interest guidelines, since Council meetings are open to both public and the media. This situation needs to be seriously considered, amended, and a Council Liaison put in place. The many new faces in the Department need to understand from the outset that they are ultimately responsible to Council, and that can only be done through the presence of a strong Council Liaison, with a clearly defined role and the respect of all Department members. In addition, I would go so far as to suggest that Council Liaison should be considered as an element of the Chain of Command within the Fire Department, since any issues would have to be brought to Council through the Liaison. Conversely, issues would be brought from Council to the Department through the Liaison, with the Liaison the only voice on Council authorized to speak to Fire Department business. -110- RECOMMENDATION NO. 2: There is still a significant deal of hurt in this great community; individuals who, quite frankly, did nothing to deserve the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them in the wake of ?Reported allegations of sexual harassment, and harassment in general?. Many of them desire nothing more than a recognition that they are not the people they have been portrayed to be. Many of them expressed the opinion that this whole debacle could have been avoided if someone had simply talked to them, and listened seriously to what they had to say. So that is my recommendation. Meet with them on their terms, either as a group or individually, or both. Find out where they are now, fully a year later. Ascertain from them what would begin the healing process in their minds. it may be that nothing can mitigate the injustice at this point, but at least afford them the opportunity to say ?thanks but no thanks?, or any other comment of closure they may wish to make. Strike a committee made up not exclusively of Council, but including other elements of the community. The healing process needs to be a community undertaking, and from my experience of working closely with members ofthis community over the past several months, not to mention living next door to it for forty-five (45) years, there is an infinite supply of talent and creativity present to reverse this mood of melancholy and turn it into a positive outcome. As for Council, there needs to be a public acknowledgment, via the media, of this investigation, its terms of reference, and its results. As to the media, this story was clearly media driven, and its penchant for sensationalism certainly contributed to the overall negativity directed towards the Fire Department as a whole. While it appeared to the firefighters that only one side was being presented, the reality is that when the alternate view was given, that side was told as well. As events unfolded, however, the firefighters formed such a distrust of the media, mainly due to inaccuracies and misrepresentations presented in initial coverage, plus the extreme level of malicious comment being directed their way both through mainstream comment and social media prattle, that they felt anything that they said would be turned and used against them, with the result, of course, being that their story was never told. As noted very early in this report, part of its purpose was to give interested and concerned parties the opportunity to have their version of events told. One can only hope that their account will be afforded the degree of importance that it deserves. -111- RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: Any member making a report, request or complaint regarding the activities of the fire department shall make such report, request or complaint in writing, addressed to the Chief. Thus reads the applicable section of the aforementioned Fire Department Policy Manual, and while, in itself, it is an excellent rule, it does need to be broadened in order to address the question, "What then?? I realize that the Policy addresses personnel complaints in its Respectful Workplace directive, however, in recognition that complaints may very well arrive in other areas of operation, the above needs to include the making of a complaint against another member. As an addendum to the policy, may i suggest the following: The Chief shall acknowledge the complaint in writing, and shall bring the matter forward for discussion and resolution at the next meeting of the Department. The member making the complaint shall be provided with a written copy of the resolution, and shall acknowledge, in writing, that he/she has been provided with a copy. Should the complaint concern another member, the Chief shall meet with both members and attempt to resolve the matter. If unsuccessful, the Chief shall have both members appear at a meeting of the Executive for resolution. Should it become necessary to bring the matter to Council, Council Liaison shall bring notice, in writing, to a privileged meeting of Council for resolution or, depending on circumstances, a decision on referral to an outside agency. Both members will then be provided with a copy of the resolution of the matter. Should a member have a complaint against the Chief, the member shall make that complaint in writing and shall deliverthe complaint to Council Liaison, who shall acknowledge the complaint in writing and provide a copy of the complaint to the Chief, who shall acknowledge receipt of the complaint in writing. Both parties shall then be brought before a privileged meeting of Council for resolution, or, depending on circumstances, referral to an outside agency. Both the Chief and the member making the complaint will be provided with a copy of the resolution of the matter. Under no circumstances, will a complaint be brought forward at a public meeting of Council. ?112?- Spaniard?s Bay Volunteer Fire Department StudyIReview Terms of Reference June 2016 The following motion was moved, seconded and duly passed at a regular meeting of Council held May 18, 2016. that the Town conduct a study/review into instances of and/or allegations of harassment in the fire department. it was further moved that Council shall meet at its earliest possible convenience to determine that ,Terms of Reference for said review/study. to select the appropriate group or individuals to complete it and to ensure that it takes place as soon as possible.? Terms of Reference The Study/Review shall be completed on behalf of the Town of Spaniard's Bay! Tilton. The purpose of the study/review will be to complete an evaluation of the Fire Department and Fire Department Liaisons from 2011 through January 2016. There are 3 objectives to be complete during the study/review: - 1. Instances of andfor allegations of harassment. 2. Instances of and/or allegations of bullying. 3. Instances of and/or allegations of intimidation. The opportunity to participate in the studylreview will be made available to both past and current Fire Department members as well as the Fire Department Liaisons with Councii.(Pariicipation shall be voluntary) A list of prede?ned questions will be asked and said set of questions will be de?ned by the agency conducting the studylreview. - A report shall be presented to Council upon completion. A request to have the study/review complete within the next 2-3 months shall be made. . Sexual Harassment Policy . Sexual Harassment Policy? for Town of Sganlard's- Bay This policy con?rms the commitment of the Town of Spaniard?s Bay to promote a safe and comfortable workplace for all employees which is free from any form of sexual harassment. . . The Human Rights Code for theprovince of Newfoundland and Labrador prohibits harassment and sexual solicitation in the workplace. ToWn of Spaniard?s Bay is committed to operate within the provisions of the law and harassment will not be tolerated in any form. Any acts of harassment will result in disciplinary actions and Town of Spaniard?s Bay will investigate all allegations-of inappropriate comments or conduct and fairly. All managers/supervisors of the Town of Spaniard's Bay have a responsibility to stop harassment. If a manager becomes aware of harassment anywhere within the company. that manager must take immediate action to eradicate the problem whether or not a complaint has been made. Harassment may be Identified as any behaviour that embarrasses or humiliate-s a person and that a reasonable person should have known to be unwelcome. It includes offensive comments related to sex or conduct, such as, touching or displays of inappropriate materials, such as, posters of a sexual nature. - Harassment may occur in the workplace itself or it may occur outside of the workplace in a situation that is in some way connected to work. This could include off-site conferences. delivery trips or the annual Christmas party. A consensual romantic relationship entered into by mutual agreement wculd not be seXual harassment. However, if one employee ends the relationship and the other person'persists in trying to continue the relationship, then this is harassment. Also, office bantering back and forth where everyone involved is in agreement is not harassment. However, if one person enters the group and is uncomfortable with this exchange and the others should have known the person was uncomfortable, then the banter becomes harassment. Employees are encouraged to speak up if someone behaves in a way that offends, humiliates or degrades them. Tell the person responsible the behaviour is inappropriate. If the behaviour continues report the matter to a manager or, Where appropriate, ?le a formal complaint. Also, employees should offer support to a coworker where you observe harassment. Depending on the circumstances, you may talk with either of the parties involved or talk directly to a manager of Town of Spaniard's Bay. Further, all employees have a responsibility to promote a safe work environment by co?operating in the investigation of the harassment Complaint. Employees should record events of harassment in writing and by talking with a trusted friend. The records should document the nature of the offensive behaviour, the date it happened, where it happened, who else was present and may have observed the behaviour, how you responded, and how you felt. If you write a letter to the person or persons responsible, date the letter and keep a All managerslsupervisors at Town Of Spaniard?s Bay are responsible for enforcing company policy on harassment and all managers have been appropriately trained to mediate incidents of harassment. Where appropriate, an employee may request a manager to intervene by mediation; Alternatively, where the perpetrator rejects mediation an employee may ?le a formal written complaint by contacting the Town Clerk/Manager. The Town Clerk/Manager is the person designated within Town of Spaniard?s . Bay to investigate formal complaints of harassment and to follow through on appropriate disciplinary action which may include dismissal depending on the seriousness of the. harassment. The Town of Spaniard?s Bay may also deem it - appropriate to retain an outside consultant. Records of substantiated harassment complaints will be placed on the employee's ?le and the parties will be advised of the outcome of the investigation and of any action taken in the matter. Retaliation against a person who has ?led a complaint, or who has assisted in the investigation of a complaint, will not be tolerated in any form and will result in serious disciplinary action. A person who has ?led a complaint with the ClerklManager at Town of Spaniard?s Bay and encounters retaliation should inform the Clerk/Manager immediately. Employees are encouraged to keep the information con?dential to prevent a' poisoned Work environment. Also, nothing in this policy 'of Town of Spaniard's Bay would prevent any employee from ?ling a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. Complaints to the Commission must be made within 6 months of . the eyent. It was moved by Councillor Barrett, seconded by Councillor Lundrigan to adopt the above noted Sexual Harassment Policy for the Town of Spaniard?s Bay. Carried Mayor - TonyMenchions Teiephone 09) 736-3563 Deputy Mayor- Paul Brazil . .-.- - -- - Fax (709) 786-7273 Councillors TOWN HALL Eric lower PO Box 190 Brenda Seymour Spaniards Bay, NI. Lends Sheppard AOA 3X0 Tracy Smith e-maii: spanierdsbay?personaoa Town Manager - Tony Ryan -: I The unicipality Spaniard?s Bay 'August24,2016 Spaniard?s Bay, NL AOA 3X0 As you are aware, earlier this year our Town became the object ofintense media and public scrutiny when allegations of harassment, bullying and intimidation were made within our Town?s Fire Department. At that time, Council committed to the conduct of an mdependent study/review of all aspects related to the operation of the Department, not only to determine what went wrong, but more importantly, to ensure that proper policies and procedures were put' to place to ensure that such an occurrence does not happen again Cotmcil recognizes that, while the intensity has abated, there' IS a lingering atmosphere of distrust and ?ustration, both outside and within the department, and it feels that much of the - ?ustraticn' 13 due to the fact that interested.- and concerned parties were not offered the opportunity to give their version and/or opinion of events as they unfolded. In May, Council passed a motion to proceed with the promised study/review. Subsequent to this, Terms of Reference for this purpose were created, and Council is giving all past and present members of the Fire Department, as well as all Cormcil Fire Department Liaisons from the year 2011 to January 2016 the opportunity to take part. Participation is, of course, voluntary. During our meeting of August 15*; Council accepted a proposal from ROW Sgt. Cliff Yetrnan (Retired) to conduct this sutdy/review. Mr Yetman served for 35 years with the RCMP, including 9 months with the United Nations as a peacekeep er in the fonner Yugoslavia Province of Koscvo. In addition, he spent 5 years working for the Government ofNewfoundland and Labrador, where his primary duty was to conduct investigations of allegations of harassment within the Government. At the conclusion of this process, Mr. Younan will present a report to Council. As an interested and! or concerned party, you are invited and encouraged to participate, and your contribution will be included in his final report. Should you wish to do so, please contact Town Manager Tony Ryan and the appropriate arrangements shall be made. Since we do wish to attach certain timelines for a ?nal report, we would request that the contact be made with Tony Ryan prior to September 9th, 2016. In the interest of con?dentiality, we would request that you do not discuss the content of your interview with other persons Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you TonyRy?i Town Manager Information only Since September, 2015, Council has held several meetings at least 4, regarding incidents involving the Town?s Fire Department. As the Department Head, and the only named responsible party according to Legislation (Municipalities Act, Part (Administration 8: Staff, Articles 54 (7), Council has gathered most .of its information from our Town?s Fire Chief. Incidents of concern are: 1) MISMANAGEMENT OF TOWN PROPERTY Explanation: a. Damage to the?Town?s ?re apparatus (pamper, unit 1), and damage to the Fire Department building. b. OHSLS inspection was conducted 8: revealed that our Fire Department is in violation of 12 orders, mainly relating to SCBA air filling station. These are potentially severe life- threatening violations, ?and can be traced back several years. c. Failure to keep proper documentation regarding equipment maintenance. This is an essential duty of any organization, and puts our Town in an immense liability situation. 2) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION Explanation: a. Pursuant to Section 23 of the Fire Prevention Act (see attachment), and also listed under Fire Chief. Regulations, Municipalities Act, and with regard to Minimum Standards Legislation: Damage to The Town?s Fire Apparatus, and The Town?s Fire Department building was a direct result of a failure to comply with the above mentioned legislation.- 3) FAILURE IQ ENEQBCE A DIRECT ORDER OF COUNCIL Explanation: Fire Chief Was ordered during a meeting to enforce Provincial guidelines, and "stand - down? on all medicai only calls received. Only Departments trained to do so, may respond to medical emergencies. Otherwise, this is a liability to our Town. b. After direction of Council was given to the Fire Chief on this matter, Councillors have been collectively informed that this order was not complied with on November 2015. Councillors have also been informed thatthis order was not relayed to the Fire Department Membership during a regular meeting. 4) FAILURE IO MEET REQUEST REGARDING PREPARATION SUBMISSION OF REPORTS OF FIRE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIESIFIRE - PREVENTIONZ EQUIPMENTZAPPAREQSIAND LIFE SAFETY. See Fire Cl?lieic Regulations, also see Article 64 (7), MA. MOTIONS: Motion move that Council commence immediate necessary action to re- evaluate and re-structure The Town 5 Fire a. Department. (Wait for-2?d prior to debate i Motion In reference to Municipalities Act, Chapter Pa rt Ill, Item 68, i so move that Council exercise its right to dismiss the Fire Chief, with a confirmation vote to be held not earlier than 30 days after, should tonight?s motion be carried. (wait for 2"Id prior to debatelill). Motion in reference to the Municipalities Act, Chapter Part item #67, I move that Council exercise it?s right to suspend the Town?s Fire Chief, for a period greater thanso clays, whereas it is of the opinion of Council that the Fire Chief has misconducted himself and his power in the performance ?of his duties. (wait for 2"d prior to it as GOVERNMENT on NEWFOUNDLAND AND monsoon I Newfo (?and Service NL Labrador Occupational Health and Safety Inspections Branch Page:1 of: 2 Reference #2 0651438 . 1?800-563-5471 msp?c'rmpg i REPORT inspection: OCT 22,2015 729-4444 OCT 22,2015 ?gwn 0F SPANIARDS BAY Firm 713 to Box 190 420907 ANIARDS BAY Tel 709-786-3568 Fax: 709-7se7273 . - ADA-3X0 1: Fire Department . Employees: 9 Town of Spaniards Bay N10 1 3300 player (to-Chair: Tony Ryan lnsp. Time: loyee (Jo-Chair: Randy Davis ker ReplDesignate: NIA Assignment 13869 On Thursday 22 October 2015 the undersigned performed an inspection of the Town of Spaniards's Bay - Fire Department in response to concerns raised by an anonymous cailer on Monday 19 October-2015. Caller voiced concerns with the bremhing air system and maintenance at the fire department. The undersigned met with Town Manager Mr. Tony Ryan and advised of the concerns and that a member of the fire department executive was requested to accompany this of?cer on an inspection at the fire hall._ . (Mr. Ryan contacted employee Randy Davis who is also the chief who would meet the undersigned at 930 hours. Met with Mr. Davis at the tire hall and advised him of the concerns. Discussed the breathing air set up and the inspections and maintenance that occur. Documentation of inspection and maintenance was '_:requested and Mr. Davis could produce check sheets that are completed by department members when performing weekly checks at the fire department but not actual maintenance records. There were noted Mo self contained breathing apparatus(SCBA) cylinders that requires hydrostatic . testing October 2015 and the fire department was aware that they were soon to need testing. Two older steel SCBA cylinders did not have visible hydrostatic dates. All SCBA cylinders must have current hydrostatic and visuai Inspections performed and records maintained Fire department' Is not keeping a ..recOrd of ail?l ?lls which? as required to ensure air is not left' so cylinders for more than a 12 month period. units have not had the required annual flow test inSpectIons performed by a quali?ed person. Overhaul inspections must also be performed by a quali?ed person as per the manufacturers instructions. - Meet the department members have been ?t tested but it has exceeded the two year requirement. Ali persons wearing respirators(SCBA) must have a current fit test completed and must be tested at a minimum every two years or if there is any change in physical state that may cause the respirator to not as designed.(i.e. weight gainlloss or facial injury). The fire department does not have 'a respiratory protection program which will have to be developed and implemented. The breathing air compressor and cascade system is on the rescue vehicle. Cascade system is not A copy of this inspectionlorder report must be provided at the earliest possible opportunity to your OHS Committee, Worker Representative or Workplace Designate. - Ur New) dland Service NL Labr Occupational Health and Safety inspections Branch Page: 2 of: 2 Reference tit: 0651438 aligns: 160045636471 mseecnonrorricsas REPORT Inspection: ocr22.2015 ?gment Reporting: 729-4444 . OCT 22.2015 .w 1 .. secured to the vehicle and the piping( hose) could not be identified as suitable for a breathing air system. - components of a breathing air system shall. be fabricated from corrosion-resistant materials that will not 3 reieass contaminates into the compressed breathing _air and be compatible with the environment. A ._'gjualitiec_l person will need to inspect this hose, fittings and cylinders that have been painted to ensure they are suitable components of a breathing air system. The cylinders require a strap system to secure them lfrom inadvertent movement. .fi'h?e portable compressor is a Junair ll manufactured by Bauer and supplied by Breathing Air Systems. is used both on scene and at the tire hall to fill the cascade and SCBA cylinders. Qompressor is powered by a Honda gas engine and there was not noted an extension for the air intake the intake air is not contaminated by the engines exhaust or other contaminants. A mast must -p;e1-3 in height and affixed whenever fiiling cylinders as well the compressor must be a minimum of 15 milirom possible contaminants when operating. Maintenance has been performed by a local mechanic and it is not known If he is quali?ed to perform maintenance on breathing air compressor ;_iranalysislhas not been performed and is required every six months through a recognized tab. When sitting the sampie for the air analysis it is important that it is obtained through ail components of the 'y?tem that would include the hose to and from the cascade system. _Nlmaintenance personal must be properly trained in operation and periodic maintenance requirements the system in accordance with the manufactures recommended preventative maintenance program. _zzpirectives issued Date: OCT 22,2015 Time: . .3 . _i?s Name: {xi/Eh - 44 Giles, Wayne . k. A copy of this inspectioniorder report must be provided at the earliest possible opportunity to your 0H8 Committee, Worker Representative or Workplace Designate. - .fej os NEWFOUNDLAND AND monsoon Eleni?) (11st Service NL . . Labrado Occupational Health and Safety inspections Branch Page: 1 of: 6 QRQER FQRM Reference 0651438 ., 1-800-563-5471 OCT. 22,2015 ng OF SPANIARDS BAY Firm #1 2,59 BOX 190 WCC 1 420907 BAY Tel: 709-786-3568 Fax: 709-786?7273 ADA-3X0 NIC TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, REVISED STATUTES OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR 1990, CHAPTER 0?3 AS AMENDED AND REGULATIONS PASSED PURSUANT TH ERETO. . EGULATION: Part VII - Personal Protective Equipment ripe- 83 - Respiratory protection program 933 Where required, an employer shall establish, implement and maintain, and revise If M35 ?b 96 where necessary, a written respiratory protection program in accordance with GSA . Standard 294.4 "Selection, Use and Cars of Respirators". The employer, Town of Spaniards Bay, shall ensure a respiratory protection program be developed and implemented for the fire department in accordance with the GSA 294.4 Standard. A copy of the program-and all relevant records relating to this (Le. ?t test records, hazard assessments, training etc.) shall be submitted to this Of?cer for review. copy of the Respirator Protection Program guidance document is provided. trait". . shatl be carried out on or before: DEG 31,2015 .7 nose; osstess- oz EDULATION: Part VII Personal Protective Equipment 71' -a Selection, use and maintenance ikfd?y Personal protective equipment shall be selected and used in accordance with recognized standards and provide effective protection; A The employer, Town of Spaniards Bay, shall ensure all members of the ?re department are fittested for the respiratory protection they use. Fit testing must be completed at a minimum every two years. A copy of this report must be provided at the earliest possible opportunity to your OHS Committee. Worker Representative or Workplace Designate. UUVEKNWEEN ur ANU LHBMUUK New o?d'iand Service NL Lebrador . - . - Occupational Health and Safety Inspections Branch Page: 2 of: 6 ORDER FQRM Reference 0651438 1-800-563-5471 OCT 22,2015 bigger shaii be carried out on or before: NOV 30.2015 i, EGULATION Part Vii?Personal Protective Equipment . . A 84 3- Respiratory protoction An emptoyer shall ensure that compressed air, compressed oxygen, liquid air and liquid oxygen used for respiration comply with the speci?cations of CSA Code 2180.1 Compressed Breathing Air and Systems. '1 ?nder shalt be carried out on or before: 30,2915 88 1-131 Safe machinery and equipment An employer shall ensure that each tool, machine and piece of equipment in the workplace used and operated in accordance with the manufacturer?s recommendations and instructions, where available, 61% 88 2-a Safe machinery and equipment Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, the installation, inspection, testing, repair, maintenance or modification of a tool, machine or piece of equipment shall be carried out in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions or a standard acceptable to the minister; or A copy of this lnspectionlorder report must be provided at the eartlest poeelhie opportunity to your 0H5 Committee, Worker Representative or Workplace Designate. . GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABHAUUK Service NL Labrador . . -- .- Occupational Health and Safety inspections Branch Page: 3 of: 6 GREEN FQRM Reference #1 0651438 1 600-563-5471 OCT 22,2015 mash? Clrarhsrew-.. 5W1 (g The employer, Town of Spaniards Bay, shalt ensure that the cascade system is Inspected by a quali?ed 5N . person to ensure the cylinders and piping meet the requirements of CSA 180-1 Regan-he 35(QGA "65ng ?le Order shail be carried out on or before: NOV 30,2015 50 35 its? ?r Part Vlil - Machinery and Equipment at 88 2-a Safe machinery and equipment 3.13 ?5 .. SJ Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, the instaiiation, inspection, testing, repair, maintenance or modi?cation of a tool, machine or piece of equipment shall be carried out in accordance with the manufacturer?s instructions V4 {if or a standard acceptable to the minister: or i 3 fl?he employer, Town of Spaniards Bay, shall ensure that the cascade cylinders have the 5 year a. 4/ i; hydrostatic test performed as required. 4 Part Vlil - Machinery and Equipment 38 2-a Safe machinery and equipment (3M Exdept as otherwise provided in these regulations, the instailation, inspection. 4M L, testing, repair, maintenance or modification of a tool, machine orpieoe of g, equipment shall be carried out in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions or a standard acceptable to the minister; or #1 the?nployer, Town of Spaniards Bay, shalt ensure that all SCBA cylinders have hydrostatic test performed as required. and that the date of hydrostatic test ls clearly visible 065t438- 08 A copy of this inspectionlorder report must be provided at the eartiest possible opportunity to your OHS Committee, Worker Representative or Workplace Designate. e- GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADGR ri?emf diam . Service NL dor Occupational Health and Safety Inspections Branch Page: 4 of: 6 ORDER FORM Reference #2 0651438 1-800-563-5471 OCT 22.2015 EGULATION: 'Part vm - Machinery and Equipment i 88 2-22 Safe machinery and equipment Caulk? Except as othenrrise provided in these regulations, the installation, inspection, . testing, repair, maintenance or modification of a tool, machine or piece of equipment shall be carried out in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions - or a standard acceptable to the minister; or - 1X :Ihe employer, Town of Spaniards Bay, shall ensure that all SCBA sets have current annual inspection {(Flow Test) completed. Any set requiring overhaui inspection will have to have that inspection rperformed. rev ,1 W?s Qxlik? An employer shall ensure that compressed air, compressed oxygen, liquid air and liquid oxygen used for respiration comply with the speci?cations of CSA Code 21 80.1 Compressed Breathing Air and Systems. as 0651438- 09 ISSULATION: Part VII - Personal Protective Equipment 84 3- Respiratory protection . "The employer, Town of Spaniards Bay, shall ensure that there is developed and maintained a "compressor log detailing the inspection,maintenance of the unit as well the compressors operation. his log must be redily avaiiable upon request. . .. =??1Qrder shall be carried out on or hetero: NOV 30,2015 It? .QULATION: Part Vii Personal Protective Equipment as 84 3- Respiratory protection An employer shall ensure that compressed air, compressed oxygen, liquid air and iiquid oxygen used for respiration comply with the speci?cations of CSA Code 21 80.1 Compressed Breathing Air and Systems. - A copy of this inspectioniorder report must ice provided attire earliest possibie opportunity to your OHS Committee, Worker Representative or Workplace Designate. salvo ll ul" may LHDMUUN '?ewf%ugdl?nd Service NL La radar Occupational Health and Safety inspections Branch Page: 5 of: 6 ORDER FQRM Referencert: 0551438 1-800-563-5471 OCT 22,2015 maintenance and inspection log. This log must be readily available upon request. ?ig'l?rder shall be carried out on or before: NOV 30,2015 84 3? Respiratory protection An employer shall ensure that compressed air, compressed oxygen, liquid air and liquid oxygen used for respiration comply with the spediications of CSA Code 2180.1 Compressed Breathing Air and Systems. The employer Town of Spaniards Bay, shall ensure that there :5 developed and maintained an SCBA cylinder refill and maintenance including hydrostatic date and re?ll records. This log must be readily available upon request. :Qi'der shall be carried out on or before: NOV 30,2015 ashes possess 12 Part - Personal Protective Equipment 84 3- ReSpiratory protection - An employer shall ensure that compressed air, compressed oxygen, liquid air-and liquid oxygen used for respiration comply with the specifications of CSA Code 2180.1 Compressed Breathing Air and Systems. QWIIT: The employer Town of Spaniards Bay, shall ensure that there is an extension for the air intake on the Junair compressor that is a minimum of 'l in height to ensure exhaust gasses from the engine do not enter this intake. hiserder shall be carried out on or before: NOV 30,2015 A copy of this inspectionlorder report must be provided at the opportunity to your OHS Committee, Worker Representative or Workplace Designate. .- uranium?II. are nun?nun h?ulmuul? .. ., .. Nem?auif??am Service NL Labrador Occupational Health and Safety Inspections Branch . Page: 6 of: 6 ORDER FQRM Reference 0651438 Toll Free: 1-800-563-5471 OCT 22,2015 YOU ARE TO NOTIFY THE INSPECTOR IN WRITING UPON COMPLIANCE. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE IS AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, RSNL 1990, CHAPTER 0-3 AS AMENDED. AN ORDER MADE BY AN OFFICER MAY BE APPEALED, IN WRITING, TO THE ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER WITHIN '7 DAYS OF THE ORDER. Received Return Address: P. O. Box 2006 Position: Corner BrookFax: (709) 637?2928 Of?cer?s Name: Date: OCT 22,2015 Gites, Way?; . Time: A copy of this Inspectionlorder report must he provided at the earliest possible opportunity to your OHS Committee, Worker Representative or Workplace Designate. Porn in classroom 'just for a laugh,? firefighting instructor says 'She had just as much of a chuckle about it as everyone else did,I teacher says of woman in course By Terry Roberts, CBC News Posted: Jan 21, 2016 12:05 PM NT Last Updated: Jan 21. 2016 4:43 PM NT The firefighting instructor who showed a pornographic film to volunteer firefighters in a department crippled by accusations of sexual harassment and mass resignations in Newfoundland's Conception Bay says it was "just for a laugh" and not intended to make the one woman in the training course uncomfortable. I . Mass resignations cripple Spaniard's Bay fire department "She had just as much of a chuckle about it as everyone else did," said Jeremy Hall, who oversaw the two-day, vehicle-extrication course in April 2014 in Spaniard's Bay. Hall is a veteran ?refighter and chief of the South River-based Bay de Grave regional fire department. For the past decade, he has been a firefighting instructor, certified by Newfoundland and Labrador's Fire and Emergency Services agency. Harassment claims The incident made headlines this week after a simmering controversy in the Conception Bay North town exploded following the mass resignation of about 20 volunteer firefighters on Tuesday. The exodus came amid a scandal that has rocked the Spaniards Bay volunteer fire department, and involves allegations of sexual and general harassment levelled by Brenda Seymour, the only female with the brigade. Seymour, who is also a member of the town council, claims the department was being mismanaged by chief Victor Hiscock, who is among those who quit this week. Seymour highlighted the April 2014 showing of the X-rated film as part of a pattern of mistreatment she has received during her time as a volunteer ?refighter. 'Personal attack' During an interview with on Monday. Seymour said she was "flabbergasted" by the film, describing it as "hard-core porn" between a male and a female that played for "?ve to six minutes." She was the only female in a room filled with male trainees. ?i do think it was a personal attack on me,? said Seymour, who added she is critical of former chief Hiscock for not intervening. ?Our chief was 100 percent responsible It was a failure in leadership," she added. When reached by phone Thursday, Jeremy Hall said he regretted playing the film, Other occasions He said he was notified by Fire and Emergency Services this week that his name has been removed from the list of certi?ed instructors. He said he played the ?lm at the conclusion of the classroom session as a joke, and admitted he had done so on other occasions. He said it was "23 seconds" and involved a female masturbating in a kitchen. The purported joke of the video is that a woman puts out a fire. The video was shown, he said, after a more conventional film that depicted a ?refighter extinguishing a fire in a kitchen. He said he cautioned the trainees that the second "Triple-X" video might not be for everybody, and they were free to leave if they desired. ?There was no harassment [intended] towards her or anybody else," said Hall. Hiscock refuses to comment When asked if the incident might impact his status as a fire chief, Hall said it is likely. The Bay de Grave fire brigade is administered by a board, and Halt said, "I'm expecting a call anytime." Hall said his removal will also affect training opportunities for about a dozen volunteer fire departments in the region. "I'll never teach again," said Hall. Victor Hiscodk, meanwhile, has declined repeated interview requests, but it's become clear that the mass resignations were a show of support for the chief. Explore CBC CBC Home Music Comedy Games TV Arts Books Contests Radio Kids Parents Site Map News Local indigenous Sports Documentaries Digital Archives Stay Connected Apps RSS Podcasts Newsletters 8: Aierts Services and information Corporate Info Commercial Services Terms of Use CBC Shop Public Appearances Reuse 8: Permission Privacy Policy Help 'll com ass. The Compass (I) News (Mews?887) Local (fNews/Local?26531) Spaniard ?s ay in dire straits following mass resignation Ni I iohlolas?Mer- 11 Published on January 20, 2016 Bay Roberts, Upper island Cove providing fire protection in interim The'wor?nan at-the heart of controversy surrounding the Spaniard?s Bay Volunteer Fire Department feels what happened Tuesday night could have been avoiwded That was when the majority of the department passed their pagers at the tail end of a highly charged regular council meeting on Jan. ?19. it started with the resignation of Coun. Sheri Collins and escalated from there. What followed was at least 20 members of the department resigning from their duties as ?re?ghters in Spaniards Bay. Firefighter Brenda Scymour was referencing a Nov. 16 meeting when Coun. Tony Dominix motioned to re- structure and reevaluate the ?re department. That [motion was defeated by a slim 4-3? margin. Seymour is ialso a councillOr in the community. . "it could have ended there it could have been Solved there she told The Compass. "it was counter productive and it showed a leek of firm decision making? That night, Seymour outlined various instances of sexual harassment. including a brief clip of an adult ?lm being shown during a training course last year. That, and other instances, sparked Seymour to come forward in November. Since coming under ?re in the last couple of months, she said her situation began to deteriorate further. There have been additional instances of harassment, including those that have bled into her personal life. They?ve been made verbally and online. Recently, she received evidence an online chat that levied threats. against her. ?it wasn?t the ?re?ghters that failed. it was the administrative structure that tailed,? said Seymour. The council is scheduled to have a meeting with the Department of Municipal Affairs in the future. That follows meetings with the province?s fire commissioner's of-ficein previous weeks. There is support Since word broke about the resignations of the firetighters, Seymour said she? 5 received plenty of support from various women? groups and others. it?s making the ?ght a little easier, although she admits Tuesday night was one of little sleep. which turned into a morning of media requests and phone calls. "The support is tremendous and it is only going up.? said Seymour. Motions defeated After Dominix motion was defeated Seymour made a pair of motionsthat called for the removal and suspension of ?re chief Victor Hiscock during the Nov. to council meeting. Both of those motions were defeated by the same 4?3 vote as the ?rst motion. A motion to have an independent review of the fire department was approved during the same meeting. ?1 was big time shocked. to say the least," said Spaniard's Bay Mayor Tony Menchions. "It's been a rough few months. We've got to work through this the next couple of days and continue to move forwar - in the interim, the neighbouring Bay Roberts Volunteer Fire Department are on call should they be needed. The ?re department in Upper Island Cove are aiso on call if they are needed. "The residents of Spaniards Bay will not see a gap in or lack of fire protection services," said Bay Roberts Fire Chief Adam Norman. Now, Spaniard's Bay finds itself having to rebuild its fire department from the ground up. Seymour said she wants to be a part of the rebuild and is hoping to get accepted to ?re school where she can take the of?cers course. "We've hit a plateau and we have nowhere to go but up. This is the bottom," she said. ?We can provide an excellent service.? mar or 55.0 cbn'co saca antaciatss ea harsher. Justice The right te-he heard. Any person affected by a decision has the right to be heard before the ?nal decision is made. A person must be permitted to both fully present their case and to challenge the case against them. - The right te adequate notice. Not receiving adequate notice deprives a person of their right to be heard. All reasonable accommodation in scheduling should be made in order to allow a person to be present at their hearingiinterview, etc. The right to he present, All parties have a right to be present at the hearing and at any aspect of the hearing Where any decision concerning their rights are being made. - The right te he represented. A person has the right to be represented at a hearing by a lawyer or a representative of their choice. The right .te disciesure. Any information that is taken into account when making a decision should be disclosed. The right te caii evidence. Each party may produce information in an attempt to prove any relevant facts that they want to be accepted and to disprove facts not in their favour. The right to areas?examine. A party can cross-examine any witness called by the other side concerning the facts. Level - Harassment investigation Workshop Hill Advisory Services 2000 I Principles Of Nature! Justice 2 8. The right is make arguments. A party has the right to submit argument when all evidence has been received. 9. The right te reasens fer the deeisien. Procedural fairness obligates administrative bedies to provide the relevant party with the reasons for the decision; 10. The right to an unbiased deeisienanaher. In order for a party to have a fair- hearing, the decision-maker-must not have a personal interest, or bias, in the case. It is also important that there should be no perception of bias. Not only should justice be done, but it should also be seen to be done. 11. The right ts an independent decisien-rneker. Those hearing the evidence and argument must be the ones to decide the ?case. Decision-makers must have full independence in making their decisions and be free from outside influences. 12. The right tn have the decision based en evidence. The decision must be based on factual grounds that are undisputed, or accepted as true, by the?decision-maker. . revel Harassment Investigation Workshop Copyright: Hill Advisory Services, Crashed trucks, dead mice and porn: Inside the ?re?ghting scandal tearing apart a Page 1 of 6 ?f . HNMUALPQSI . NEWS . COMMENT . masseuse . mums; . TECH . an . us? Hans - HOMES . DRIWNG . [llamas .. ass . mania: NEWS PULITKS crass-l TRENDING Cannabis I NHL 1 Blue Jays us. election 1 FP Magazine Real estate Crashed trucks? dead mice and porn: insidelthe'?re?ghting scandal tearing apart a Newfoundland town Citizens in the small Newfoundland town of Spaniard?s Bay are dividing into warring camps after the disappearance of virtually its entire volunteer ?re department over an ugly spat involving the community?s only female ?re?ghter. Brenda Seymour, who is also a town councillor, says she has faced a gauntlet of harassment including the workplace sore-ling of a pornographic film for exposing an ?oldhoys club? deparhnent riddled with lax safeur standards, untested equipment and improper "Once you lmow these things Eon can?t unlmow them, and it kind of makes you guilty if you den't come forward with it, Seymour told the National Post by phone. Among others, she noted an incident in which a rookie was allowed to drive a fire vehicle and endedup damaging the ?re hall. During the subsequent repair, a town maintenance worker was injured so badly "he?s probably never going to walk correctly again.? ?This is just mind blowing. It has to be exposed and bled out, and it has to he stopped,? Seymour told CBC earlier this week. But the 20 ?re?ghters who tendered their surprise resignations this week have countered that Seymour is an upstart troublemalter out for the ?re cl?efa job. ?It?s a personal issue between Victor (the chief) and her, and she?s Using her council powers against the department,? said Cory Mahaney, one of the resigned fire?ghters, who added that Seymour is trying to spin the whole con?ict into a ?gender issue.? 10/17/2016 . Crashed trucks, dead mice and porn: Inside the ?re?ghting scandal tearing apart a Page 2 of 6 ?She thinks it?s because she?s a female that she?s not being put in the positionof assistant - chief or captain or lieutenant, but the reason being is that the boys know she hasn?t got the con?dence,? he said. Seymouris one of the highest trained ?re?ghters in the deparhnent, having obtained Level II certi?cation, the amount needed to become a professional ?re?ghter. But Mahmey says the skills are just ?on paper. Alerter circulated around Spaniards Bay by Mahaney says that twice, Seymour reported being unable to attendto an emergency because of a faulty breathing mask. The mask, he says, was later foundto be fully functional. haven?t got any faith in that girl whatsoever," he said. Chief "Victor Hiscoclc has made no public comments since his departure. Askeletcn crew of eight ?re?ghters, including Seymour, remain on staff in Spaniard?s Bay vrhile neighbouring communities have been scrambledto beef up me town?s ?re coverage. Meanwhile, friends and family of the breakaway group of ?re?ghters have leapt to their defense. ?These ?re?ghters weren?t looking for trouble, theywere just standing for what they believed in rather then sit down and have false accusations thrown in their face,? said Kate Davis, daughter of the assistant chief, in a messaged statement to the National Post. Davis created the Facebook page Support the Spaniard?s Bay Eire Deparhnent, which now has more than 800 members and features, I posts written almost exclusively by Spaniards Bay women. ?She is agrown woman and the only grown woman in a ?rehouse with green: men," mote one post by a Spaniard?s Bay woman. ?She can't expect them to sit down, eat chocolates, talk about Fifty Shades of Grey and tampons.? Seymour said she?s had dead mice dangled in her face, a chief that faces down her requests with intimidating body language and fellow ?r?ghters who tell her that they mashirbated on her equipment. Who?? him (in; (is Qnmamm- Gem We. hen-Uneven 10/ 17/2016 "Crashed trucks, dead mice and porn: Inside the ?refighting scandal tearing apart a Page 3 of 6 What has gotten the most attention in Spanisrd?s Say, however, is that during a 2014 training session about vehicle extrication, the instructor, a chief from another Newfoundland community, ended the class with the screening of an X?rated video. Called ?how to put out a kitchen the '2o-second clip consisted of a couple having sexin a when the woman suddenly sprays the room with a prodigious amount of female ejaculate. did take it personally, I?m not going to lie about that,? said Seymour, who said she saw it as an. @h?ld?d?eg?hhisa?i? and jeopardize her chances for future training. assuage. The who spoke to CBC this week, said it was ?just for a laugh." ?wt meg? Sparks have been flying between Seymour and the department as far back as 2009. At that time, she was denied a request to go to ?re school, and 1when she secured special funding to go without affecting the department?s budget, she said she was suspended for insubordination. Soon after, she mentioned at a councilmeeting that rookie ?re?ghters were being thrown into emergency situations with little to no training. ?It wasn?t a revenge act, it was a duty and the very next day I was dismissed by the department,? she said Eight months later, however, Seymour was reinstated by council after a length},r process to prove that she had been the target of an . unlawful dismissal The issue again came to a headin November when Seymour presented a laundry list to council of systemic ?re department Vich?ons'mg mead hers-{Na Adi 535?- ears,msteadoferems1te is . .3 - 1mg: reaps-aid the rein-?s? W4 WM The news spurred resolutions to restructure the department and ?re Chief Hiscock, but they were narrowly defeated by a single vote ?ora the Spaniards? Bay mayorih?? Fume??ir. snirtefg?a ?.?f?ialons with -3, 3, the departure oi: town councillor Sheri Collins, the ?re deparunent liaison. Mg. 3* um 3? some, ceases Question In the tense days since November, Seymour says she?s been sent notes calling her a "conniving witch,? and was struck by a co?ee cup ?'oru a moving car that she suspects might not have been an accident And she denies any Machiavellian plot to maneuver herself in as Spaniard?s Bay ?re chief. would refuse itii? offered to me,? she said. As loyalties shift and entrench in the ?ght over the Spaniards Bay ?re department, perhaps no one is Caught in the-middle as much as Martin Seymour, Brenda?s hquand and one of the department?s longest serving ?re?ghters. "I?ve stood side by side-with these fellows and wot?dn?t want to see any-harm come to them, but we have to be professional and gettbis done,? he said. They?re all good people.? .. 1 0/ 1700 1 6 title. of Spaniard Bay?s ?re department quits in protest over sexual harassment Page 1 of 3 Halt of Spaniard Bay 5 tits a arts-tent quits? En I EE Eon-a. \5 The allegations have split the once-close Newfoundland community, wine: has been as scrambling to ?nd. 0?10) volunteers?om other towns. . EGC Lita-Stroll Gotrilloe? I I -C?ll1asg By ROBIN LEVINSON KING Staff Reporter .. .1 Fri.l Jan. :22, 2016 . - The accusation has pit the onlyfemale number of the ?re department against the tom?s ?re chief, and divided the once close-knit community oi Spaniards Bay, N?d. Tensions have ?been hoilingfor months since Brenda Semour, who' 15 also a local councillor, called on Chierictor Hiscock to resign during a' November council meeting. Seymour claimed that Hiscool; failed as a leader by tolerating a culture of 131111511113 and sexual harassment, and mismanaglng the department?s resources. Shewt id she was prompted to go public site .. ?no. . smiths. also alleged she was shown a pornographic video dunng a dop arb11ent-organ12ed nailing session. "Oh my God this 18 never going to stop, it?s just going to get' worse," she told the Star. Hiscock detained to comment on the allegations. The matter is mviawodby an independent body hired bythe town after a split vote by council resulted' 1n Mayor'i?ony Menchions casting the ?nal vote to keep Hiscock In his position. hem-Hummaqm-m . 10/17/2016 start or Spaniard bay?s tire department quits in protest over sexual harassment Page 2 of 3 ?gure he had the full approval of council before and, unless something comes to light, I'm going to stand by that decision," Menchions said. Seymour's allegations have divided the ?brotherhood" of ?re?ghters her husband is also a member (he has not res ed). It has lit the town into ?two cam those who believe :1 th ae who don?t. ign 1333:3511 0 I a 2 4,th Marja ?3333?- WEE I depublid, about of the act-person volunteer fire OnMondaydbEll?a? 3mm? protest. Le councilliaisonto the?re 43dapartment also quit. Exit ?bk-His- Gts? thn?a?mf-?l ta Supper?: ?At the end the day you? re all brothers and sisters and you?re a group that has to' os?clttogether," David dance, one of the ?remen who resigned, told the Star. The resignations have left the town of about 2,800 vulnerable and scrambling to ?nd volunteers from neighbouring towns. In Newfoundland and Labrador, many?re departments are sta??ed by unpaid, part?time volunteers. The province?s Department of Municipal Attairs will be meeting with the town to discuss a solution to its ?re?ghter shortage, and neighbouring communities have agreed to spare volunteers in the meantime. A spoleesperson for the prq?nce said this is the ?rst incident of its kind. Local newspaper the Compass reported that 200 peeple gathered outside the municipal centre on Thursday evening to support the former ?re?ghters, holding up signs that read "Support our men.? . ?We thank you for the support," the Compass reported Hiscock told the crowd, his ?rst public remarks since the Scandal broke. Former volunteer ?re?ghter Darren Butte, who trained with Seymour and served' or another department told the Star he' 13 ?sickened" to see the town support the deparhnent instead of her. ?The one issue that can never be entertained by ?rst-response agencies is harassment of any kind," said Butte, Who has since relocated to Calgary. ?Ifyou bore vdtness to this type of behaviour . . . why did you not take action?" @136 Qwes?? 51k 4 There have been tensions between Seymour and the department alone she joined in 2009, when Hiscock ?red her- bemuse she "overstepped boundaries? between herjoh at the ?re house andher role in council, according to the independent report that concluded she was wrongfu?y dismissed. - Seymour said she thought things were turning around this-past 'y?ar, but an incidentin the fall at the ?re house was the ?nal straw. Last October, Seymour said she went to'tli? chief in the of?ce tetherrow a balaclava. As he was handing it to her, she alleges another male ?re?ghter in die merit chimed in: QMA ?Brenda, you might want to go home and wash that. We Jerhsd all over if NW: 3933313333 is. 33.33%? W333 With wh?fe _s_h_e bromt - .mard Seymour claims the chief did not comment or tntenrenel ?hh?mg??xr-T ti;- Egg?-e; I f. 3% sexual Elias it out everything can J. can?t say that there was a real strong effort made to come to any or anyresolutions with this problem,? . . - she said, which' 13 when edecided to bring upiEL the' testis at the her nil meetingl??h?iw ?ix WNW l. .55. in 2014, Seymom' said de- arnnent?s executive board, including the chief, after 33.33.3334 was shown aporn video during a training session. .1, - dense? wade, as 52?er dt 1 he_ lid ,mg?g, fir-331,: But neither the chief nor other members of the a; er comp am said. 3i I 1?43 "Never to date have I ever gotten an apology,? she said. ?3?5 #:ch . . reignite ?k 3 I - 31:53 instructor who played the tape, Bay de Grave?s Fire ChiefJeremy Hal], mime Star that after Seyxnonr's' i allega?dns were made public he was told by the province he' is no longer allowed to he a ?re h1struetor._ 3 No 90W "When the videos were played she had just as ranch supp: as everybody else did,? he said Sham 3? 3333333335339; -1 ?$39 It a even thoughemdn?tptesgp] as:- Eng :t?lsse Sald she felt the uses 1 Krh? ?we madame. the Supm-h, lit? . 3 a: knew I was in a room with 23 men and I started to question why am I seeing this and what do they want me to do? I took it personally Seymour said. . {33? use 1? Ci ?3?;ij Janos said he and the other ?re?ghters hope to return-? are made t0 them 3i ?3 lag?AI MIA 3?0 (\ch 595.3 Wrasse/each: 16/0 .. 10/17/201 6 man. u; opwumu may 5 1m: ucparuncm guns in prowst over sexual harassment Page 3 of 3 "Trust is earned,? anes said. ?We're going to have to build a relationship again.? Correc?un:Jan. 23, 2016 This article was updated from a previous version that misstated David anes? surname. 10/17/2016