Councillor Tim Baillie has recently dismissed concerns about the Township’s $11.5 million sole-sourced firetruck purchase, calling them “lies” and criticizing those exercising their right to question government decisions as cowards. But this public deflection misses the substance of the issue entirely. The questionable pieces of this purchase are:

• Why was a conflict of interest not declared when a close associate of Mayor Woodward was the sales representative?

• Why was such a major public contract awarded without competitive bidding?

Claim #1: “Mayors don’t order or source fire trucks.”

Reality: While Mayor Woodward did not personally submit an order form. Council, under Woodward’s leadership, approved two firetruck purchases, first for $661,000 and another for $10.8 million, without issuing a public tender or request for proposals. The absence of an open bidding process is what has drawn public concern. It’s about transparency and getting the best value for taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars; it’s about how this deal was made.

Claim #2: “Proper procedure was followed. The Fire Department made the call, and Council approved it.”

Reality: Baillie’s statement does not correspond with what actually happened. Standard procurement practices typically require competitive bids for substantial contracts. This did not happen. The only rationale offered came in the form of a brief, two-page report to Council. While the Fire Department may have recommended the trucks, it is Council’s job to ensure procurement is transparent and defensible. Only Councillor Kim Richter questioned the process, voting against the deal. The rest of Council, including Baillie, approved the purchase with minimal discussion. If this is considered “proper procedure,” then perhaps it’s time for a refresher course in Municipal Governance 101.

Claim #3: “We did our homework. The Fire Department evaluated 33 suppliers.”

Reality: The unsubstantiated claim of evaluating 33 suppliers lacks transparency. No detailed analysis or documentation of such an evaluation has been made public. The decision to focus solely on Pierce fire trucks and no other suppliers, thereby limiting the scope of the contract, further underscores the questionable nature of this deal and highlights the need for a more open and competitive selection process.

Claim #4: “Standardizing on Pierce is a great idea.”

Reality: Standardization may have some benefits, such as easier maintenance or training, but this argument is a distraction from the central issue: why was a massive contract sole-sourced without oversight or competition? Council could have still sought proposals from multiple vendors to supply a standardized fleet. Instead, it focused on one brand from one dealer, without checking whether others could offer better equipment, pricing, or servicing packages. Even the stated cost savings were never substantiated. When asked, the Fire Chief could not provide any dollar amount showing that this deal would save money long-term. As the old saying goes, “if it’s such a great deal, you shouldn’t mind showing your work.”

Claim #5: “If you don’t put your name on it, you’re a coward.”

Reality: The suggestion that a critique is invalid if anonymous is a blatant deflection. The Langley Monitor’s reporting has been and will always be based on the facts provided through council minutes, public documents, and staff reports, all of which are a matter of public record. Facts do not care who delivers them. This attempt to divert attention away from the issue and focus on anonymity avoids the more uncomfortable question: why was a multi-million dollar deal handed out without public competition?

In the end, the firetruck story isn’t about anonymous authors or shiny red paint on the trucks. It’s about a municipal government that approved a large sole-sourced contract with limited oversight and a Council that failed to ask the questions taxpayers expect of their elected representatives. That deserves more than hollow bravado in a Facebook video. It deserves straight and real answers, Councillor.