Centralia No. 5

08

Fall

08

Fall

Centralia No. 5 – Assignment 1

For this assignment we are asked to tackle three items. The first, identify and explain four (4) logistical alternatives Scanlan could have addressed. Next to analyze and discuss Scanlan’s motivations toward the Constitution (the law), bureaucracy (as a public administrator to the public) and obligation. And finally, we are to take a position on two (2) possible paths of action for Scanlan and defend your choices.

The Blast in Centralia No. 5: A Mine Disaster No One Stopped was difficult to read. At numerous points throughout the text I wanted to say, “Stop! Do you have any idea what you are doing?” As stated by Laudicinia, this is a, “play of bureaucratic proceduralism, partisan political pressures, intergovernmental rivalries, competing interest group pressures…which produced a series of non–decisions and, ultimately, disaster”(White, 1978). The text did indicate several instances of political pressures, rivalries between individuals and departments, intentional and perhaps unintentional oversight, and above all, in my opinion, a complete lack of accountability.

One of the key participants in this disaster was Driscoll O. Scanlan. He started working in a mine at the age of sixteen (16), took night classes in engineering and functioned as a coal-company mine examiner for thirteen (13) years. In 1941, upon recommendation by his district political representative, he was appointed by the Illinois governor as one of sixteen (16) state mine inspectors (Martin, 1948).

Unlike other inspectors who wrote brief reports, often after simply chatting with mine officials, Scanlan took his job seriously and would compose lengthy and detailed reports enumerating every violation he found, regardless of how minor. He regarded Centralia No. 5 as the most violation laden mine in his territory. In his first report, among other violations he specifically cited, “The haulage roads need to be cleaned and sprinkled…That...