A former fire safety official for the municipality of Crans-Montana testified for nearly twelve hours, describing what he characterized as systemic failures in fire prevention policies over several years. His statements, delivered in detailed and at times stark terms, focused on what he claims were repeated warnings about potential fire risks that allegedly went unanswered.

According to his testimony, prior to 2026, no establishment in the resort town had ever been closed due to fire risk concerns. This, he argued, was not due to the absence of risk, but rather a pattern of inaction despite multiple alerts sent to cantonal authorities.

“I requested the closure of buildings,” he reportedly stated during proceedings. “But my calls remained without response.”

Crans-Montana, a well-known alpine resort, attracts significant seasonal activity, including hotels, restaurants, and entertainment venues. Fire safety oversight in such environments is typically considered a critical component of municipal risk management. The former official described what he believes was a prevention framework that, in his view, lacked responsiveness at higher administrative levels.

He testified that he repeatedly transmitted lists of locations he considered potentially dangerous due to fire hazards. Over time, however, he said he ceased sending those reports, explaining that no action appeared to result from his communications.

The allegations center not only on administrative response but also on inspection protocols. The former official claimed that highly flammable acoustic foam used in certain establishments was not evaluated during official fire inspections. He clarified that this omission was not, in his words, a matter of negligence by inspectors, but rather a structural issue tied to the scope of mandated controls.

According to his account, inspection checklists were limited primarily to emergency exits and stairwells. Materials such as acoustic foam were not included in the formal specifications governing inspection procedures. As a result, he argued, a potentially significant fire risk factor remained outside the regulatory focus.

The testimony raises broader questions about how inspection frameworks are designed and updated. Fire safety standards often evolve over time in response to emerging research, incidents, and material innovations. If certain materials are not explicitly included in control protocols, they may fall outside routine scrutiny.

In this case, the former official suggested that prevention efforts were constrained by regulatory limitations. While inspectors reportedly conducted checks in accordance with established guidelines, those guidelines may not have encompassed all possible risk factors.

Authorities have not publicly responded in detail to the testimony. It remains unclear whether an internal review of inspection protocols is underway or whether the canton intends to address the allegations through policy reform.

The claim that no establishment was closed for fire risk before 2026 is particularly striking. In many jurisdictions, temporary or permanent closures are sometimes imposed when critical safety deficiencies are identified. The absence of such actions over an extended period may prompt examination of enforcement thresholds.

At the same time, officials responsible for oversight may argue that enforcement decisions are based on specific legal standards and evidentiary requirements. Closure orders typically involve significant economic and legal implications, especially in tourism-driven regions.

The former fire safety chief’s statement that he eventually stopped forwarding lists of potentially dangerous locations underscores his sense of frustration. However, it also raises procedural questions about communication channels and escalation mechanisms within public administration.

Fire safety governance involves multiple layers, including municipal services, cantonal oversight, and regulatory bodies. Coordination among these entities is essential to ensure that risk assessments translate into preventive action.

The issue of acoustic foam has drawn particular attention. Certain types of foam materials, especially when untreated or improperly installed, are known to be highly flammable. In various international cases, combustible interior materials have contributed to the rapid spread of fire.

If such materials were present in establishments within Crans-Montana but not covered under inspection mandates, it may reflect a regulatory gap rather than individual oversight.

Legal analysts note that testimony alone does not establish institutional failure. Investigative or judicial processes would need to evaluate documentation, correspondence, and inspection records to determine whether warnings were formally received and how they were handled.

The nearly twelve-hour testimony indicates the complexity of the matter. Detailed accounts likely included timelines, documented alerts, and descriptions of internal processes. Such extended proceedings suggest that the issues raised are multifaceted rather than isolated incidents.

For residents and visitors of Crans-Montana, fire safety standards are not abstract regulatory concerns but practical matters of public safety. In resort environments characterized by high occupancy and seasonal influxes, robust preventive measures are widely considered essential.

Whether the allegations will result in structural reforms remains to be seen. Authorities may conduct audits of inspection protocols, expand checklists to include additional materials, or clarify responsibilities between municipal and cantonal bodies.

For now, the former official’s testimony stands as a detailed account of what he perceives as prolonged shortcomings in fire prevention oversight.

His central claim is clear: repeated alerts were issued, closures were requested, and yet no action was taken before 2026.

How institutions respond to those assertions may shape the next chapter in Crans-Montana’s approach to fire safety governance.