Oliver Chronicle | Providing Local News Since 1937

Oliver council is going back to the wordsmithing board to clarify a policy that has snowballed into controversy.

On December 12 council quickly passed a motion that the Town reimburse people’s transportation costs when they attend Town functions where liquor is provided.

This sparked a lot of feedback from local taxpayers, many of whom opposed the notion of paying for taxi rides home for councillors and Town staff.

Mayor Ron Hovanes said he received several calls from residents, but after speaking to them about the policy, they understood council’s true intent and the concern about liabilities.

Hovanes told Committee of the Whole on January 9 that the policy resulted in “zero” dollars being spent this Christmas season. “It is likely not something that will be used very extensively.”

Councillor Jack Bennest said the wording of the original motion was problematic, but council’s intent was admirable. The fact is the Town has a responsibility to ensure its employees get home safely after a function where alcohol is provided, he pointed out. It’s also a liability issue.

Councillor Linda Larson said she hasn’t attended any function where this service wasn’t provided.

She explained that providing a safe ride home doesn’t necessarily mean a taxi, it could mean a designated driver. “We’re not buying alcohol for council and staff, and paying for their ride home. We’re just providing a safe way home.”

Municipal Manager Tom Szalay clarified that these functions pertain only to Town-sponsored events. He noted the only annual event is the Christmas party. The recent function on December 9 saw them pay admission, which bought them dinner, two drink tickets and entertainment (a DJ) at Fairview Mountain Golf Club. Extra drinks, if any, were purchased by individuals directly from the restaurant bar, Szalay said.

The two other staff events in 2011 were a local golf tournament and a licenced after-work social at Pubic Works on December 16. These two events were funded entirely by staff, he pointed out.

Szalay confirmed there were no out-of-town functions last year.

Larson made a motion that staff come back to council with a more appropriately worded policy statement. The motion was carried.

Later that evening during the regular council meeting, Oliver resident Cliff Marriott voiced his opposition to any such policy. He said the Town was creating a “Chicken Little syndrome” where the sky is falling when it isn’t. He noted there has never been a lawsuit in Oliver over this issue, saying council is jumping to conclusions and increasing costs unnecessarily.

Marriott said councillors and staff should never drink in relation to their jobs, adding the Town should not be sponsoring functions where alcohol is served.

Mariott stated that staff should be forewarned that they are on their own in getting safe rides home; it shouldn’t be up to the Town.

The resident said the policy sends the wrong message to youth by telling them it’s okay to drink because someone else will look after them. He concluded by saying if councillors want a drink at these functions, they should drink water. He suggested the policy should be rescinded altogether.

But Larson said she has yet to see a councillor drink anything that would make them act irresponsible. “If anyone need a ride home, we will support that in a safe manner. That was the intent (of the policy) . . . it was not intended to be a money issue.”

Larson said the Town did not create this legal quagmire, where people can sue you over the spilling of hot chocolate that you served them.

“This (policy) is a step to make sure we don’t go to the taxpayer to pay for a lawsuit . . . we have to deal with it in a proactive, not a reactive manner.”