Re:RE: Re:RE: Boston Globe Online / Metro | Region / WPRI reporter's link to club stirs ethical questions

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

>Dan Billings writes:
>I am troubled by the station saying that they picked the club because >it was
>to be used as an example of a club that observed all safety >regulations.
>How did they know this?  Was the club suggested as a model by >inspectors.
>If so, then it was a good choice.  More likely, they accepted the word >of
>their employee that the club obeyed all safety regulations.
>Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine

Dave:
So, if you asked an employee a question and they gave you an answer you would assume they are lying?  


>Brian Vita writes:
>It may very well have been their belief that it did.  If the >renovations
>were done by the previous owner and presented to Jeff as having been >done to
>code, would he have any reason to believe otherwise.  If the previous >owners
>used improper materials and somehow got it by the inspectors (either >through
>an oversight or something more sinister)to get the place licensed, >then why
>would the new owners have been suspicious.
>Brian Vita


Dave:
In the same newser with the fire chief that I quoted in a response to Donna, the question about renovations was asked and the chief again said it was not a legal issue in this case, the renovations done did not trigger whatever threshold to required sprinklers etc.  Keepping in mind the fire dept said the club had a fire inspection in Dec and passed with only minor problems and they also said those problems were corrected prior to the fire.  
I think you'll find that both the band and club will be held responsible.  Assuming the club did not grant permission for pyrotechnics the band would be at fault, however it would also be reasonable to expect the stage mgr should have noticed pyrotechnics being set up on stage and stepped in to stop it.
df