Week 3, Assignment 1
The Blast in Centralia No. 5, in Stillman, PA
Modern Public Administration
Date:
Centralia No. 5 Mine Explosion
Public administrators work at all levels of government, both at home and abroad. The substantive
fields within which public managers work range across the varied interests of government and
public affairs, from defense and national security to social welfare and environmental quality,
from the design and construction of roads and bridges to the exploration of space, and from
taxation and financial administration to human resources management. Though public
administration varies tremendously in its scope and substance, those who work in public
organizations share certain commitments. Among these, none is more important than a
commitment to public service.
The Centralia Mine opened in 1907 and remained free of fatal accidents for decades (Walker,
2006).Most of these men dedicated their lives to the Bell &Zoller Coal Company mining coal at
the company’s Centralia #5 Mine. This group of men attempted on numerous occasions to get
help from agencies and elected officials that were expected to protect them. The miners found
this group of people completely out of touch. The agencies and elected officials wrongly thought
that writing reports and having meetings would solve a problem or make it go away by itself.
Others seemed unwilling to help them for fear of the loss of their own jobs or political status.On
March 25, 1947, the Centralia No. 5 coal mine exploded near the town of Centralia, Illinois,
killing 111 hard working miners.Because of the safety record of the mine, it was considered
relatively safe and a disaster seemed remote. The United States had just ended a war and the
economy was picking up and production needs were relatively high.
Identify and explain four (4) logistical alternatives Scanlan could have addressed
Driscoll Scanlan was assigned by Governor Dwight Green to the Illinois Department of Mines
and Minerals as an inspector.Robert M. Medill, Director of the Department of Mines and
Minerals and Scanlan’s supervisor; Robert Weir, Assistant Director; Darryl Green, Illinois
Republican Governor; and Centralia Coal Mine officials,these where the key players in this mine
disaster. The responsibility of a mine inspector was to “police the mine operators – to see that
they comply with the state mining law, including its numerous safety provisions.” The mine
inspector also had the power to close a mine if he felt there was imminent danger of an
explosion, even though this power was rarely used by an inspector (Martin). For over two years,
despite numerous negative reports filed by mine inspector, Driscoll Scanlan; site visits and noted
violations filed by Federal Inspector Perz; complaints made by mine workers to their union, the
Director of Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, and a passionate letter to Governor Green
which was done in 1942.In his first report, his recommendations included cleaning and
sprinkling the haulage roads. Scanlan inspected the mine several times in the years before the
explosion. At the end of each inspection he sent his report to the Illinois Department of Mines
and Minerals. Several of his reports throughout 1942-1944 repeated his previous
recommendations and added new one. In one of the letter ones, he recommended that the mine
be rocked dusted (Stillman, 2010). In follow up to his reports, he should have inquired with the
Director for the status of his recommendations. When he found that none of them were taken
care of, he could have let the miners know what the issues were and helped fix the areas in which
there were problems. Scanlan could have also worked with the union to push fixing the mine or
shutting it down until repaired. When he made the threat to shut them down, the company
started to fix some of the problems that were indicated in his reports, but the changes that the
company made to the mines were only temporary. His only other option would be to try to
sprinkle the roads and help with the rock dusting.
Other logistical alternatives he could have used are as follows:
1. Take advantage of positive relationship with miners and educate them on steps they could
take through union activities. Even though Local 52 felt a “wildcat strike” (Martin) would
bring the federal government down on their heads, it would have also brought attention
from the right sources to the deplorable conditions at the mine.
2. Scanlan could have closed mine due to imminent danger of an explosion. He could have
required repairs and cleanup be done to avoid a disaster. Even though he feared for his
job and reputation, his actions could have shown the mine operators the government was
firm about correcting unsafe conditions in the mines.
3. Scanlan could have been more persistent in getting his reports of imminent danger
through the bureaucratic process. He could have had more direct contact with Medill
and Weir in seeing that the mine operators were taking his reports seriously. He could
have demanded action from his superiors.
4. Scanlan could have gone directly to a sympathetic newspaper to report these conditions
and lack of action by operators and the government. This would have brought public
awareness of the failure of the bureaucratic system. He had sufficient documentation on
the violations and lack of response by his superiors and the mine operators.
Analyze and discuss Scanlan’s motivation toward the Constitution (the law), bureaucracy
(as a public administrator responsible to the public), and obligation.
Scanlan carried out the duties of inspecting the mines. He was very interested in the well-being
and safety of the miners at Centralia No. 5. He worked diligently to identify all the violations at
the mine which, if corrected, could assure the miners safety in their workplace. He used the
system to report these violations and expected the system to comply by having the mine
operators correct them. He reported his findings to the Department of Mines and Minerals and
the State Mining Board (Stillman, 2010). Scanlan was truly an advocate for the miners.
However, the bureaucratic make-up was flawed; therefore, no one governed whether the
violations were handled in a timely manner. He, unlike some the other inspectors, did not get
involved in the political aspects with the companies. Many of the inspectors would have drinks
with the company officials and provide brief inspection reports. Scanlan was quite different.
Scanlan talked to the miners and made sure that their complaints were included in his inspection
reports (Stillman, 2010). The local union expressed their concerns to the State of Illinois in
response to the findings of the special investigation commission (Stillman, 2010). They also
followed up with a letter to Governor Green, thanking Scanlan for taking the issues to Prudent
the Superintendent and local officials on their behalf (Stillman, 2010). Scanlan made 13
inspections and reports, each were reported to the Department of Mining and Minerals. Most of
his reports were dismissed and responded to as not being as serious as it seems.
Take a position on two (2) possible paths of action for Scanlan and defend your choices.
1. Business and political gain played a critical role in the conditions that led to the
accidents. Although Scanlan provided numerous reports, his superiors down played
the seriousness of his recommendations. They seemed to be more concerned about
keeping the officials happy. The lack of attention given to the seriousness of the
inspection reports provided by Scanlan proved to be detrimental to the miners. His
inspection reports were ignored by state mining officials and mine company
supervisors. Scanlan’s first course of action should have been to shut down the mine.
Being a state inspector, he had the authority to shut down a mine if there were
violations that had been brought to the company’s attention, but not addressed in a
reasonable amount of time. This action, in my opinion, would have been the best
course of action. An alternative course of action would have been to go the officials
that are higher than the state and federal officials that he was dealing with. He had
performed enough inspections, over the course of 3 years, and found that if the mining
conditions were not improved, that fatalities would eventually occur at this mine (Saleh,
2011). The state and federal officials were more concerned about continuing business.
They did not take into consideration the seriousnessof the inspection reports that
Scanlan was continually providing them with. The lack of their follow through and the
dismissing of his recommendations would have been taking more seriously by someone
at a higher level. I feel that they would have stepped in and taken action that may have
saved the lives of the miners. This disaster followed by another mining disaster in
1968 caused Congress to become more aggressive with mining companies by passing
the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act in 1969 (Ward, 2007). Unfortunately it
took another terrible mining incident to get them to notice how important it is for higher
officials to make companies follow the recommendations of mining inspectors.
2. Scanlan probably knew that the political injustices would not take the miners safety into
consideration; therefore, he needed an ally to help him in saving the miners from
disaster. A recourse that could have helped was obtaining the support of the
public. Americans are entitled to “attention of the system and should be able to expect
just outcomes.” (Denhardt). These miners were not going to get this attention by
working through the bureaucratic framework that was in place at the time. Scanlan
could have gone to a sympathetic newspaper and reported what was happening at the
mine and the chance of imminent danger to the miners. This would have gotten not only
the attention of the public but the administration that was failing the needs of the
miners.
Conclusion
The explosion at Centralia Coal Company Mine No. 5 was avoidable. Due to protecting oneself
(Scanlan), political aspirations (Governor Green), government bureaucracy (Mehill, Weir,
federal and state government) and greed (mine operators), 111 men lost their lives and
devastated the lives of loved ones and a community. The position of mine inspector should not
have been a political appointee, but a civil servant who might have had some protection from
current administration in trying to enforce policy. Centralia Coal Company leaders were very
aware of the dangerous conditions at the mine but ignored requests to correct
violations. William Young, a senior representative, told U. S. senators that “he had disregarded
inspection reports.” (O’Neil) Governor Green allowed others to address issues, such as the
letter from Local 12 miners, in order to focus on his political aspirations. Mehill and Weir’s
handling of the inspection reports and other communications were not conducive to clearing the
numerous violations noted, but just performing minimum requirements to get it through the
system. There was not a “meeting of the minds” where a clear-cut process was in place where
the government stepped in to force the miner operators to correct the violations or suffer huge
fines or other charges.
Miner death rates have dropped tremendously; not because of safety procedures in place, but
because there are fewer mines and miners working. In 1947 in Illinois there were 185 mines
with 51,000 employees compared to only 3,500 miners working in 25 mines in 2006. However,
due to high energy prices and concerned with the supply of oil, mines are once again becoming
operational. The unions and miners believe that once again, safety will take a back seat to
production (Farrar).
References:
Denhardt, R.B., &Denhardt, J.V. (2009). Public administration: An action orientation: 2010
custom editiond. (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson – Wadsworth – Cengage Learning.
Farrar, Fletcher., “Coal miners: Please save our lives.” IllinoisTimes. 26 Nov 2006: 2A.
Retrieved July 13, 2012 from http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/print-article-3637print.html
Fleege, Anthony., “The 1947 Centralia Mine Disaster.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical
Society, Volume: 102, Issue: 2. Publication Year: 2009. Retrieved July 15, 2011 from
O’Neil, Tim., “Centralia mine blast dooms 111; A Look Back; Warnings of unsafe conditions in
1947 were ignored.” St-Louis Post-Dispatch. 25 Mar. 2012: B3.
http://www.questia.com/reader/action/readchecked?docId=5037737712
Martin, J.B. (1948). The blast in Centralia No. 5. Harper’s Magazine, 1-38.
Martin, John.,(2000). “The Blast in Centralia No. 5: A Mine Disaster No One Stopped,”
Reprinted by permission of Harold Ober Associates Incorporated by Stillman, Richard J., Public
Administration, Cengage Learning, 2.
Saleh, J. (2011). Safety in the mining industry and the unfinished legacy of mining accidents:
Safety levers and defense-in-depth for addressing mining hazards. Safety Science, 49, 6.
Stillman, R. (2010). Public administration concepts and cases (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin Co. pp. 30-44.
Walker, D. (2006). Death underground: The Centralia and West Frankfort mine disasters.
Ward Jr., K. (2007). Shafted. Washington Monthly,39 (3), 22-28.
Wilson, Rick., “Improving mine safety.” Charleston Gazette. 16 Feb. 2012: 4A. Retrieved July
10, 2012 from https://web-ebscohost-com.libdatab.strayer.edu/ehost/detail?sid=29cc22a4-4...