A fire at one of the Olympic venues? Try again, Alex.

The picture above was supposed to be a smoking gun of damnation in the Ark Tsisserev affair, according to Alex Tsakumis.

As he claimed when he first posted the photo:

“The picture…is from this last weekend. It’s a fire that started because of faulty wiring at one of the Olympic venues–clearly uninspected. Copies have been circulated to the appropriate authorities including the Vancouver Fire Department and Vancouver Police Department.”

Yet, like I questioned in an earlier post, I doubted whether a fire had actually started at any of the venues that the public streamed into during the Olympics.

And now an internal document from Vancouver City Hall confirms my suspicions.

This report clearly shows in the final two points of the document that the fire did not occur at an Olympic venue:

• During the Olympic Games, a small fire in one of the trailers (not a Pavilion) was reported

• The fire was immediately addressed and it was reported that the cause of the fire was related to an overloaded breaker serving a service trailer on the site

This approach of selective reporting is similar to Tsakumis’ claim about the documents I posted in the above-linked commentary:

“I had already released the same paperwork from the City of Vancouver, well-over a month and half ago, showing that Mr. Tsisserev signed off on the problematic panels that are in place at the Olympic Village–but that they were STILL a potential problem.”

Really?  Well, Tsakumis’ post from February 9th mentions the documents, but never releases them as he claims.  He conveniently extracted excerpts from Tsisserev’s email that warned of potential danger.  However, Tsakumis never references the following paragraphs from Tsisserev after he received a report dealing with these concerns from Underwriter Laboratories of Canada:

“Please, be advised that the conclusions presented in this report  are deemed to be satisfactory to this office for the purpose of acceptance of the referenced product for installation in Vancouver as an “approved” fire alarm control panel.”

“By the copy of this email to Tony Mezenberg and Scott McCuaig I’m advising Technical Management of GE Security that the referenced issues is considered to be resolved, and that all restrictions on the use of EST3 in the City of Vancouver indicated in my original email to Scott are no longer applicable.”

As Tsakumis acknowledges, “Mr. Tsisserev signed off on the problematic panels that are in place at the Olympic Village – but that they were STILL a potential problem.”

Yes, Tsisserev states that “the Technical Committee responsible for a development ULC S 527 should review current requirements of this standard so, as to mitigate any future design, construction and performance problems described in the report – for the benefit of fire safety.”

Yet, Tsisserev continues on to label the issues he raised as “resolved” and that his concerns about the use of the EST 3 were “no longer applicable”?

Furthermore, on January 19, Tsisserev also signed off on a set of waivers that relieved the Chief Building Official and his team from monitoring the fire alarm systems at some Olympic special event facilities.

I have read Tsakumis’ complaints and concerns very carefully, and what I have been able to determine is that they all have to do with parameters that Tsisserev gave his approval to.

So, my question to Tsakumis is this: Are you questioning the legitimacy of Tsisserev’s expert decisions in relation to both the comfort he showed with the EST 3 fire alarm control panel and his acceptance of the waivers for certain temporary Olympic venues?

Because it certainly seems as such, rendering your virulent attacks on the Mayor and the City Manager as grossly misplaced.

A telling set of documents regarding the Ark Tsisserev affair have been sent to CivicScene, challenging the trumped up claims of a group of political motivated individuals.

I have just received a very telling set of documents regarding the Ark Tsisserev issue, which has now taken on a level of political maneuvering and innuendo that doesn’t line up with the facts.

Alex Tsakumis writes in his post from yesterday morning that:

“…this whole matter began after I was leaked the email stream between Ark Tsisserev and his colleagues, from October, November and December of last year and then into early January–when he first raised concerns related to life safety issues with respect the the Olympic Village and then was concerned about inspection limitations for the pending Olympics.

He adds in a challenge regarding the safety sign-off by Tsisserev:

“If all Olympic venues were approved by city electrical inspectors in accordance with all recognized electrical and safety standards, release all the reports.”

In a post from February 9, Tsakumis also seems to suggest that Ark was fired as the whistleblower who was bringing forth safety concerns, and whom the city wanted to silence:

“An outstanding employee is fired after he spent the last two months of his tenure seeking answers to safety concerns about the Olympic Village that would be filled to the brim by unsuspecting Olympic athletes from all over the world not ten weeks from when Mr. Tsisserev discovered something might be wrong. In the midst of, presumably, seeking corrections, that exemplary employee is unceremoniously marched out of his office like a common thug, in front of his staff…”

I now have evidence in hand that proves otherwise.

This scan contains the letter written by a representative from Underwriter Laboratories of Canada and the subsequent response from Tsisserev after he brought forward concerns about how fire alarm systems (GE Security Model EST3 Fire Alarm Control Panel) used in the Olympic Village may be “problematic” back in November.  At that time, he also requested that “immediate steps” be taken.

Here are the specific claims that Tsisserev made in his initial report:

“When a radio is used within about 1 ft. of an annunciator, it causes the LCD screen to go blank, then the panel to go into a reboot mode and the LCD zones to look like a Xmas tree, which appears to require a manual reset to get the panel up and unning again.

This condition was confirmed numerous times, on 3 annunciators in different buildings at the site.  While the panel was in this mode, it did not register new alarm activations, and new activations did not trigger an audible alarm.  The annunciators operated normally after they were reset, but the same reboot process started again when a radio was used near them.”

In this resulting response letter detailing an investigation into Tsisserev’s concerns, Underwriter Laboratories of Canada notes the following about the GE Fire Alarm:

“The Model EST3 Fire Alarm Control Panel is currently Listed under ULC’s Fire Alarm Control Units product category.  At the time of Listing, ULC determined the product met all of the applicable requirements of the Standard for Control Units for Fire Alarm Systems, CAN/ULC S527.”

Fine.  But Tsisserev was specifically talking about how these Control Panels were severely compromised – as in a false response – when in close proximity to a hand held radio.  So what of the ULC tests regarding this particular issue?

Let’s continue reading:

“Our investigation revealed that during the reported incident [Editor's Note: referring to Tsisserev's], the hand held radio was held closer than the 300 mm required by the standard and that the door panel was not in place (i.e. closed).  The radio did not interfere with the operation of the control panel when the radio was 300 mm or more from the control panel and the door panels installed and in the closed position.”

The letter seems to question the way in which Tsisserev conducted his tests.  Regardless, ULC still acknowledges Tsisserev’s concerns about radios being within 300 mm of the panel and states:

“…it appears that the control panel is adversely affected when the radio is fewer than 300mm from the panel which is less than as specified in the standard.

We are therefore providing the information on this report to the Standards Committee for ULC S527 for its review and consideration.”

So what about Tsisserev’s response.  Did he continue to have concerns and “whistleblow,” allegedly leading his dismissal?  Well, let’s look at the key points in his response to ULC’s letter:

“Please, be advised that the conclusions presented in this report  are deemed to be satisfactory to this office for the purpose of acceptance of the referenced product for installation in Vancouver as an “approved” fire alarm control panel.

“By the copy of this email to Tony Mezenberg and Scott McCuaig I’m advising Technical Management of GE Security that the referenced issues is considered to be resolved, and that all restrictions on the use of EST3 in the City of Vancouver indicated in my original email to Scott are no longer applicable.”

Tsisserev was also happy and made more secure by the knowledge that “it was recommended by the investigating Certification Organization that the Technical Committee responsible for a development of ULC S 527 should review current requirements of this standard so, as to mitigate any future design, construction or performance problems described in the report – for the benefit of fire safety.”

So all of this bluster about Tsisserev not signing off on the fire safety of the Olympic venues, and that all visitors to these sites were put at grave risk because of a lack of oversight, is a bunch of political spin.

Time to find the next issue in which to go after Vision Vancouver on, Alex, because this latest attack is not standing up to the most basic scrutiny of the facts.

I am currently looking into the validity of the alleged fire that occurred at the Canada Pavilion, and will report back on my findings when I finish my investigation.

The shock over Ark Tsisserev needs some clarity.

I have done a little digging on the Ark Tsisserev story, and this is what I have found out from conversations in and around City Hall.

Ark was dismissed following City Council approval of a shared services review recommendation to combine the city electrician position with the head of licensing and inspections

Vancouver is one of the few cities that still had a stand-alone electrician

It was normal process for the dismissal to take place in camera, because the electirician position was a direct hire/dismissal by council

All venues, permanent and temporary for the Olympics were inspected by city staff and signed-off before an occupancy permit was given

There were zero electrical or fire issues arise at any of the venues during the Games – the city’s safety and inspection record speaks for itself

Any specific concerns that had been raised – such as faulty electrical panels in the Olympic Village – were inspected by city staff and no safety issues were found.

That being said, this is about the city’s reputation.

The Electrical Contractors Association (ECA) deserved immediate hearing on the issues raised about codes not being met during the Games.

The City would be wise to sit down at the staff level with contractors, union representatives, and other relevant stakeholders – not to review Tsisserev and his dismissal, to but give confidence in safety inspections going forward.

Off to a meeting, but I will check back in later in the day and challenge the claim of certain individuals perpetrating the story of a fire at one of the Olympic venues.

Embellishment is the first word that comes to mind.

City Council doesn't seem to be getting a full picture on a number of issues within City Hall.

Far be it from me to try and rival what Tsakumis is doing with this story, because his investigation over the past month and a half has been quite extensive.

For those unfamiliar with the issue, here is the Vancouver Courier’s Allen Garr and his account of the situation.

But in the vein of last week’s Vancouver Sun column, I am specifically interested in the January 21 in-camera City Council meeting that notified Council of Tsisserev’s departure and suggested Will Johnston, former Chief Building Official, as his replacement.

More specifically, I want to know what city staff conveyed to the electeds.

As we all know, Councillor Geoff Meggs is at home recovering from terrible accident.

However, I plan on speaking to him directly in the coming days to figure out whether Council was told of Tsisserev’s “retirement” or of his dismissal.

My initial suspicions are that city staff didn’t give Council the full story to Council, and indeed portrayed Tsisserev’s departure as voluntary. Thus, there was no need for Council to question the suggestion of Johnston as anything but above board.

In watching and listening to the interviews Mayor Gregor Robertson has done, it is clear that he is unsure of the real story, and that has everything to do with the information provided by staff rather than deliberate attempts to mislead.

There is a growing body of suspicion about the way in which city staff are interacting with our democratically elected officials, and that should be a huge concern for all Vancouverites.

I heard that my column last week ruffled quite a few feathers internally last week, as indignation spread amongst those readers who felt that questioning their motivations and God complexes (the story I continue to hear is that top city bureaucrats regularly refer to the Councillors and Mayor as “hired help) is out of line.

Au contraire…something has got to give. And this latest affair might very well be the straw the broke the proverbial camel’s back.