Scanlan

The Blast in Centralia No. 5
Angela Banks Strayer University Modern Public Administration
Dr. Leah Raby 1.27.14

In this paper, I will first identify and explain four logistical alternatives Scanlan could have addressed. Secondly, analyze and discuss Scanlan’s motivation toward the Constitution (the law), bureaucracy (as a public administrator responsible to the public), and obligation. I will also take a position on two possible paths of action for Scanlan and defend my choices. Finally, I will research and cite at least four peer reviewed academic sources.
Driscoll O. Scanlan went to work in a mine near Centralia when he was 16, studied engineering at night school, and worked 13 years a mine examiner for a coal company, until in 1941 he was appointed one of 16 Illinois State mine inspectors by Governor Green upon recommendation of the state representative from Scanlan’s district (Martin, 1948). During Scanlan’s time in office there was a disaster known as The Blast in Centralia No. 5 that killed one hundred and eleven men. Scanlan was one that took his job serious and in my opinion was about self-discovery. He went directly to the mine and spoke directly with the miners to conduct the reports that were needed. After speaking with some miners and assessing the premises he considered the Centralia No. 5 mine the worst in the district (Martin, 1948). One logical alternative that Scanlan could have addressed was after his first thirteen reports were not handled properly he should have went directly to the source, which was Weir, an unimaginative, harassed little man who had come up through the ranks of the miner’s union and on recommendation of the union had been appointed Assistant Director of the Department by Green (Martin, 1948). With Weir holding his position he should have sought out for more solutions to get the Scanlan’s reports read and acted upon. The second logical alternative that Scanlan could have addressed was after meeting with Medill, hired by the Governor, who served a few years as director if the Department of Mines and Minerals, that he take the reports more serious and move with a sense of urgency. Scanlan stated in a meeting with Medill “the mine was in such condition that if the dust became ignited that it would sweep from one end of the mine to the other and probably kill every man in the mine, Medill responded “We will just have to take that chance” (Martin, 1948). Scanlan should have went to the Governor after that conversation, because as an investigator who is performing their duties as instructed should not be given that type of response from a person of that statue. The third logical alternative Scanlan could have addressed would have been taking the reports directly to the miners. I believe that if he had taken the reports directly to them they would have been able to refuse to work knowing the conditions that they were in. The final logical thing that I believe Scanlan should have done would be to have a meeting with everyone involved in mining. This includes Governor Green, the Superintendent, Medill and Weir. During this meeting the miners could appear to plead their case of why they did not want to work in such bad conditions.
Scanlan’s motivation toward the Constitution should have been to take things to higher levels if those who he depended on originally were not helping him. All of his reports indicated that the mine was not safe and the miners should not be working under those conditions. As a public administrator, Scanlan let them down in my opinion. Before the mine reached its conditions to where it was extremely dangerous he should have used his authority of being an investigator to his advantage. Perhaps he was concerned with how others would view him if he took a straight forward approach. His reputation would have been on the line considering how others were politicians doing what they wanted to do and sweeping things under the rug. He was obligated to assure that the mine was in working conditions and obligated to keep his job. There are two paths of action that Scanlan could have taken. First, when there was a tour of the mine he should have been included. He should have pushed for this because he was more familiar with the conditions and familiar with the miners. Scanlan was in the position to receive the exact time and date of the tour. Even if those in a higher position demanded for him to be absent during this time he should have taken initiative to be present. The miners were familiar with him when he first began his investigations because he was a hand’s on investigator. Those miners trusted that Scanlan would do what was needed for their safety. For as long as anyone could remember, from the opening of Centralia No.5 in 1907 to the 1940's, the mine had been dusty and dry. “Coal dust accumulated everywhere, reducing visibility, complication ventilation, and making life miserable for workers” (Hartley and Kenney, 2006). The second path of action would have been to get with the public directly. He could have called his own meetings and those who believed in him would have shown up. The miners would have come, they would have informed their families and friends and the outcome would have been successful. During this meeting with the public news reporters or other reports may have been documented and the Centralia Company would not want bad publicity. Finally, during the discussion of the Blast of Centralia I researched four peer related sources. The first source provided by Dinna Andrews was http://www.illinoislaborhistory.org/centralia-mine-disaster.html. This article is a report from the U.S. Department of Labor, summarizing the thoughts of President of the United Mine Workers of Americas. The second source provided by Bandon Gordon is http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/a-look-back-ignored-safety-rules-lead-to-mine-blast/article_11ca901b-f2ec-5b6e-b1a2-3b241cbd5fd8.html. This article is a summary of the disaster and how it was neglected. It also shows detailed pictures of the miners being brought out after the explosion. The third source provided by Ira Tynes was http://www3.gendisasters.com/illinois/5822/centralia-il-coal-mine-disaster-mar-1947. This article is about interviews of the miners that survived. The fourth source provide by Kandi Phillips. http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO . This article is about the mine safety and health administration.

Reference:

Denhardt, R.B., & Denhardt, J.V. (2009). Public Administration. An Action Orientation (6th ed). Belmont, CA, Thompson.Wadsworth
Hartley, Robert E., and David Kenney. Death Underground: The Centralia and West Frankfort Mine Disasters. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2006. Print.
Stiller, Richard J. (2010). Public Administration Concepts and Cases. Mason, OH: Thomas Wadsworth Cengage Leaning.