You know I’m for good investigations and through root cause analysis of accidents with complete analysis of the Management System and any regulatory failures. And I think we all should have access to the results of government investigations. But the press is asking for access to a current – ongoing – MSHA investigation. I believe that kind of access is unprecedented and harmful. See if you agree…
MSHA is performing a root cause analysis of the Crandall Canyon Mine disaster. CNN, the Associated Press, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Denver Morning News and others filed a joint suit to STOP the investigation until a judge could decide whether the proceedings (the investigation) should be open to the public (see CNN story).
First, stopping a safety investigation by MSHA so that the press can see if they can be included seems totally outlandish to me. The CNN story makes it sound as if MSHA is covering up its mistakes and only the spotlight that the press can shine on an investigation will save the day and make MSHA come clean. And if the judge doesn’t see it like CNN sees it … the Congress should intervene! After all, it is CNN’s First Amendment (freedom of speech? – that’s their claim) right to have open access to the investigation.
Imagine being an investigator doing an investigation and having to bring the press along. If you think people (company owners, miners, and even MSHA employees) are reluctant to talk openly about their mistakes now, imagine if what they said was going to be the headlines in the morning paper (or on CNN) the next day.
Fortunately, the judge – U.S. District Judge Dee Benson – had better sense and looked at the Constitution. He wrote:
“Plaintiffs argue that the First Amendment mandates public access to the type of MSHA [Mine Safety and Health Administration] proceeding at issue in this case … They point, however, to nothing specific in the Constitution to support their claim.”
Good call Judge Benson!
How does CNN play this decision? They said:
“The press does not have the right to get access to the government’s investigation into the deadly August accident at the Crandall Canyon mine, a federal judge in Utah ruled Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Dee Benson said there is no constitutional basis for him to make the investigation public.”
By the way, the press – just like everyone else – will have access to the COMPLETED investigation. MSHA posts fatality investigation reports on their web site and has a PRESS conference about major investigations when they are complete. The difference in this case is that the press has decided that they should be allowed to see the internal workings and raw data of the investigation.
Too me … that seems nuts!
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not naive. I know that government regulatory agencies – just like anyone else – doesn’t like to put their mistakes on public display. And there may be regulatory shortcoming in the mining permits that were approved for this mine. But the investigation and MSHA should be judged on their openness and honesty after the investigation is complete.
DISCLOSURE:
In the fairness of disclosure … MSHA is a TapRooT® User. We also have a former MSHA employee as one of our instructors.
That has nothing to do with my belief that this request is nuts. But if I don’t disclose it … someone could say I was just trying to protect a client.
However, rather than protecting a client, I think I’m protecting self-critical analysis, investigations, and root cause analysis.
I firmly believe that the press does little to shine light on the root causes of disasters. (For example – Katrina.)
The press isn’t “bad” … it’s just that their timeline of interest is way too short to allow anything like root cause analysis. (See this article I wrote BEFORE any of this came out.)
The press should wait – like everyone else – for the investigation to be finished. Then they can criticize MSHA for not being self-critical enough IF that turns out to be the case.
Otherwise, I believe that total press access to an ongoing, detailed investigation would turn the investigation into a Hollywood press circus. The MSHA investigation of the Crandall Canyon Mine disaster would look more like the OJ Simpson trial.
I’m convinced, a politicized, instant answer press investigation won’t help improve mine safety – or safety anywhere. Their methods and time line just won’t allow it.
Do you agree or disagree? Let me know…
Like
I do agree with your statements for the following reasons:
Often, during an investigation, our understanding of the “problem” changes as we learn new pieces of information. The new understanding is sometimes in contradiction with previous “beliefs”. As a society, we like more to find a culprit than the cause. As an investigation team, we thrive to understand the causes. If the press publishes erronous or incomplete understanding, a lot of undue harm could be created. I’m still waiting to read the front page of any newspaper pointing to root cause rather that the culprit or the savor. This situation could sometimes prevents the investigation team to move forward in the search of the truth and the real cause(s).
Problem # 1 in investigation is transparency of the information TO THE INVESTIGATION TEAM. If anything, the freedom of speech rights needs to be given in priority to those close to the investigated issue NOT the press.
I rarely share my opinion publicly, but this issue caught my attention.
Best luck,
Rey
Agree !
The judge’s decision, while apparently correct regarding the constitution, is weak at best. More important than that issue is the issue surrounding the families and people affected by the tragedy and the opportunity to correct those issues as contrasted with the perceived rights of the press as they attempt to expand their power.
The information gleaned at the end of a TapRoot investigation is often different than the perceptions and expectations going into that investigation. The public’s right to know has to be balanced with the victims rights to privacy. Issues surrounding the potential for mis-information during an investigation are too great a risk and simply do not take into account the needs or rights of the victims.
More important than the Press’s need for sensationalist news should be a fair and impartial investigation using TapRoot as it was meant to be used.
I agree, however I think that in the interests of incident nonrecurrence there are cases where OH&S (CAN) could, within days, release what happened as the root cause. Case in point – A JD 650 Pipelayer dropped its boom on a worker near Drayton Valley Alberta. The worker was crushed between the boom & the pipe (fatal). We are a pipeline Co. I needed to know what happened so that I would be able to avert this within our org & hopefully anyone else’s. I called OHS & was told the investigation was ongoing, this was 2 wks after incident. I was stone walled for another 2 months. I don’t care who was @ fault I just need the cause. Finally I heard through word of mouth that cable clamps were not tight on the dead end of boom line. We put a policy in place stipulating that cable clamps/clips were not allowed on any rigging on pipelayers & we installed wedge sockets on all machines. I think that vital info is often withheld from those who need it the most on the feeble & backward ground of legalities pending. This info needs to be disclosed with extreme urgency. I completely understand the mistrust the public & media have with investigations, findings are often so slow that the very same thing happens somewhere else. This is precisely what the investigation is supposed to prevent. Thanks for the opportunity to say something about this.
My thoughts were reflected in the first 3 responses. I can appreciate Rick’s comments. It points to the importance of industry operating experience. In that venue an industry can communicate to others without putting the early information in a public domain.
I support the judges position fully.
I do not believe that the press should be in on the investigation phase as indicated in Rey’s comment the press interest is centered more around who is to blame than what is the cause and can lead more to cover up thanopenness since in most instances the press is not trained in the specific area and therefore would not be able to ask the pointed technical questions that could lead to discovery.I also agree with rick that there is an unnecessary attempt to conceal information by investigating agencies that gives the perception of withholding information. Information gathered in investigation that is relevant and pertinent to similar industries should be passed on to those industries as a matter of urgency in order to prevent similar occurences in those industries.
In the case of Gregg’s comment the victims cause will be better served if the press analysed the final report and highlited any perceived discrepencies.
tHE JUDGES RULING LEAVES OPEN THE QUESTION OF TIMELYNESS. MANY TIMES, THE OFFICIAL REPORT IS STALLED FOR YEARS. tHE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE IMPOSED A RELEASE DATE FOR THE FINDINGS (DRAFT)
tHE PURPOSE OF A 5TH ESTATE IS TO ENSURE OPEN GOVERNMENT; MANY GOVERNMENT BODIES FORGRET THAT THEY ARE THE DEFACTO GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER HOW NON-POLITIS THEY ATTEMPT TO BE.
THEREFORE, THE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC OVERSIIGHT IS REASONABLE, BUT ‘PRESS” COVERAGE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO COMPROMISE PROPER OPERATION.
wE ALLOW THE PRESS TO COVER TRIALS IN COURT, BUT OFTEN “GAG” ORDERS ARE ISSUED UNTIL THE TRILA IS COMPLETED.