Voters want to know where the candidates stand on the issues and so does Sudbury.com.
To that end, Sudbury.com is running a special election feature: Where Do They Stand? We picked nine issues that mattered, and reached out to the mayoral candidates and invited them to give us their answers.
Each candidate has 250 words or less to stake out their position on each of these issues: the Kingsway Entertainment District (KED); expanded casino gambling; large project spending; downtown Sudbury and the urban-rural divide; taxation (everyone’s favourite); roads (always top of mind in Sudbury); the health of our lakes; the state of firefighting in the city, and; transparency, openness and leadership.
We’ll be rolling a new story every weekday, an election issue per day leading up to Election Day.
Today, we're talking firefighting. In 2017, the city embarked on what turned out to be a debacle: the Fire Optimization Plan. It was a poorly conceived and poorly executed attempt to address real issues with fire services in the city. The fallout was so bad it led to Trevor Bain's departure as the city fire chief. It led to two city councillors being investigated for harrassment and bullying. It was a disaster.
But issues with fire services in this amalgamated city remain: duplication of services, issues with equipment and recruitment of volunteers, rising costs.
Read on and find out exactly what the candidates think. Now, every candidate was invited to participate, but not all of them chose to do so. Here are the answers from those who did. Rodney Newton, Troy Crowder, and David Popescu did not supply answers.
You can click on each candidate’s name to visit their page on the Sudbury.com election website.
Here's the question we asked: Although the 2017 Fire Optimization Plan was a municipal fiasco, issues with the city’s fire service remain. Duplication of services, issues with equipment and recruitment, rising costs remain issues that need to be tackled. What must be done? Explain your position.
Public safety is the No. 1 issue in our city. We must ensure that when considering any decision about reorganizing or adjust any aspect of service. Our fire, police and with EMS all need to work together and be respected by staff and council alike for the hard work they perform. What we need to do is listen to those on the frontlines and those leading each sector for what is required and move forward with what is possible and how it can fit into planning, budgeting and implementation.
Cody Cacciotti
Once again a lack of leadership and forethought has created another divide in our city. Moving forward our city should work toward a cohesive environment that ensures we are doing what is needed to keep our citizens safe. Fostering a culture where services to our citizens is always the top priority will be my primary goal as Sudbury’s next mayor.
As I understand it, consecutive terms of council have sought answers to address perceived issues with our fire service. Recommendations from consultant reports from the IBI Group (2014), Fire Underwriters (2016) and the internal Fire Optimization report of 2017 were all ignored.
It’s apparent that despite past advice and several reports to council no action has been taken. I think the wording of the most recent report did not align with council’s expectations. Perhaps they didn’t want to optimize, maybe they wanted to find efficiencies?
City services such as fire, police, paramedic services, snow plowing, road maintenance, and water/waste water are core services that despite their importance we do not notice them until we are personally in need. As council it is our legislative responsibility to set levels of service for our fire service.
I am aware the best practices of other municipalities with similar geography have established service levels in alignment with such variables as geography, population density and water supply. It is my understanding that council has not taken the responsibility of defining its expectations and so the perception remains that everyone receives the same service. Council needs to decide if it wants to provide the same service level throughout our geography or should we re-think service levels, costs and re-structuring?
Duplication of services, issues with equipment and recruitment, rising costs remain issues that need to be tackled when it comes to many of the city’s first responders, not just the firefighters. Having said that I can admit that I am not in any position to suggest what should or should not be the solution moving forward. What I suggest is exactly what collaborative leadership means: I’d take the role of mediator and bring in a representative from each of the respective areas including a fair representation from the public sector to come up with a viable resolution. Those who are working the front lines should be part of the consultation process as their expertise should be taken into consideration.
The 2017 Fire Optimization Plan is a good question, and at this time I will not be able to answer as I will have to do more research. However, I do not believe there should be duplication of services and rising costs should be dealt with immediately.
Rationalization of our fire services needs to be done. Our fire resources are not being properly utilized and as result the service is inefficient, costly and firefighters suffer from a serious morale problem. The closing of rural stations is not the answer, neither is marginalizing our volunteer firefighters. Perhaps we should be looking at a blended fire service where full-time and volunteer firefighters are operating on an equal footing at all of our stations urban and rural.
The fire plan was yet another example of poor leadership. The plan was drafted within the confines of Tom Davies Square, without appropriate community engagement. This is a plan that called for changes in the way fire services would be delivered to many of the town centres and neighbourhoods across Greater Sudbury. Leadership must start with listening.
In the end, the fire plan was abandoned. But the original problems have yet to be resolved. Our Fire Services need an overhaul, but it needs to be done in consultation with the community and with an open and shared understanding of the challenges and risks associated with any proposed changes. We would all benefit from a solid understanding of the kind of fire services people expect for their money. That should be the starting point for a new plan which will be created with robust engagement from our communities.
I am sorry. I do not have a position on this and will not provide a bullshit answer.
