”I'm taking my ball and going home.”
One can laugh a bit about the antics of children on a schoolyard who can't agree on how they're going to play the game, because it's kind of funny to watch.
It isn't at all funny when instead of children you're dealing with neighbouring elected officials, and it's downright frightening when public safety is at stake.
Westlock County's decision to pull equipment out of the Clyde Fire Hall — which provides service to the village but is also the nearest hall to county divisions one and five — is not just foolish but it's incredibly dangerous.
County residents in those divisions may have to wait an additional 10 minutes or more for a water supply should they find themselves in the unfortunate position of needing fire protective services.
When minutes can mean the different between saving a structure or saving lives and losing them, this is completely unacceptable.
Likely elected officials and administration from both municipalities will have to shoulder some of the blame for this fiasco, as decisions were made behind closed doors and once again, elected officials have been unreasonably circumspect about the decision and its impact.
Yet there's a potential for a silver lining in all this. Perhaps it will prompt a broader discussion about how fire protective services are delivered to all residents within Westlock County's borders, including those in the village and in the town.
It would be foolish to think police service would be best delivered by three separate municipalities cooperating through mutual aid agreements, and likewise for ambulance service.
So why is our fire service run this way? Already the three area municipalities collaborate through boards to provide things like water, waste and seniors' housing, and there's no reason fire service couldn't be provided in the same way.
One board with representatives from three municipalities and a per-capita funding model could more effectively provide fire services with a single, unified fire department. The nuts and the bolts of this kind of agreement may take a while to work out, but in the end it would be well worth it — if only to prevent disagreements about funding and equipment leading to decisions about critical fire equipment leading to unnecessary risks to the public.
