The Blast in Centralia

Blast in Centralia

[Author]

[Instructor]

[Course]

[Date]

Blast in Centralia No. 5

Question1: Identify and explain four (4) logical alternatives Scanlan could have addressed.

Driscoll O. Scanlan, a state inspector of the coal mines at Centralia No. 5, did not consider the use of logistical substitutes in order to protect the misfortunate workers. As a state appointed official and the representative to the public, Scanlan should have utilized his positional powers in the manner that could produce results(Fanning, 2007). He was active in reporting his findings and presenting his recommendations every three months to the concerned Department of Mines and Minerals. Since a long period of three years, his reports were given no significance and did not materialize any action. Scanlan, being legally responsible for the safety of the miners, should not have permitted the Mines and Mineral Board to ignore his message for a period of three years. In order to produce results and make sure that Mines and Minerals Board take any action against the hazardous conditions at Centralia, Scanlan should have been practical and more aggressive in his actions.

For instance, he should have provided a copy of his findings, along with the copy of the state law to Superintendent Norman and state a dead line for the due cleanup of the mines at Centralia or otherwise the mines would be closed.

Also,Scanlan should have also been practical and instead of generating reports, that had effect on the Mines and Minerals Boards, he should have arranged a visit to Chicago’s main office and meet the president of the Company. In this way he could have directly present his findings and recommendations to the President and urged him to protect the workers at Centralia 5(R, 2004).

Moreover, Scanlan should have used media as a weapon to convince the authorities at Centralia No. 5. The press conference should have addressed the issue that the safety at mines is being compromised. A...