Most observers strongly suspect that Denis LaRocque is the party most responsible by far for the terrible fire of February 20, 2003. Count Rhode Island's chief law enforcement officer decidedly among their ranks. Why else would he use all of the considerable power of his office to abstain Fire Inspector Denis LaRocque from the process of justice?

This conclusion is beyond any measure of fairness. I have not commented on any of the Station fire news coverage or on the trial that found the gentleman who lit the pyrotechnics and the owner of the club who allowed the act to include pyrotechnics responsible. I have not out of respect for the survivors. I know some of them and using the tragedy to score political points is disgusting.

OK, everybody, let's remember this is Rhode Island. And here is the deal on this one. Frank Montanaro is the president of the RI Association of Firefighters. He is also president of the RI AFL-CIO, and he is the Democratic National Committeeman from RI. One other member of the Democratic National Committee is Bill Lynch - brother of Attorney General Patrick Lynch - by virtue of his position as executive director of the RI Democratic Party. This was the lineup when the Station Fire lawsuit was going on.

Everyone knows how important the unions are to the Democrats getting elected in this state. Now, knowing all these cozy relationships, do I need to elaborate any more as to why the Attorney General did not go after the fire inspector?

I agree that this tragedy is not one which we should be using for political gain, however, it is something that we should have learned from and use that knowledge to keep all RI'ers safe in the present and the future.

We began down that road with the passage of a number of fire codes that kept public safety as the #1 focus. Unfortunately, as time faded our memories businesses and towns began attempting to lessen the codes by claiming the cost was too high. Was the cost of 100 lives cheaper by comparison?

We are dancing down that road once again by attempting to reduce fire department minimum staffing levels for budgetary concerns. There is no doubt that the number of victims that horrible night was a direct result of a woefully understaffed fire department in West Warwick. There were only 2 men p/truck on the first two responding vehicles that night and there were only 11 firefighters on duty in the entire town!! This is basically the same staffing you will find today.

While no department could have saved all the victims that evening, a well-staffed fire department could have saved a good number of those in the front of the building. Alas, we will never have a well-staffed fire department in this state (every single fire department in RI is under-staffed), but the last thing we need right now is to further reduce the minimum staffing levels. The savings will be counted in dollars, but the cost will be counted in souls.

"towns began attempting to lessen the codes by claiming the cost was too high."

So then let's just require a hard-wired alarm system from every building structure in the state, along with sprinkler systems. That'd be safer than the $10 smoke detectors most houses have, right? Hey, safety at any cost, right?

"There is no doubt that the number of victims that horrible night was a direct result of a woefully understaffed fire department in West Warwick."

So maybe we should just put 100 firefighters on duty every night, right? Then just about whatever happens, the fire departments will be ready. Hey, you never know when a plane might crash into the Warwick Mall. Is Warwick prepared to handle that? Would a few more firefighters initially on the scene save more lives? Of course.

"(every single fire department in RI is under-staffed)"

Of course it is. We could double the number of firefighters on staff and they'd still be "understaffed". Same for police, and teachers and ...

Despite the tone of my response, I certainly don't disrespect you or the job you did as a firefighter or the job that any firefighter does. However, I'm just pointing out the alternatives to your arguments. Yeah, we'd all love to have the most perfect safe lives, but there are costs involved and you do have to draw a line somewhere in balancing it out. Where that line should be is open for some debate.

Hey Tom,
Enough of your feigned indignation about lives being lost. If one lousy, lazy fire inspector did his damned job, 100 people would be alive today!
You keep trying to push the blame to "businesses and towns began attempting to lessen the codes by claiming the cost was too high."
BULL! If the inspector enforced the rules on the books at the time, none of this would have happened. All the regulation in the world won't change that fact.
Remember, Tom, it's one of your own, your union brothers that is responsible for 100 lives being lost. I hope you sleep well knowing that. Glad to see nothing stops you louts from sticking together. Just one more example of what you are made of.

Patrick,

<<<<< So then let's just require a hard-wired alarm system from every building structure in the state, along with sprinkler systems. That'd be safer than the $10 smoke detectors most houses have, right? Hey, safety at any cost, right? >>>>>

I never said "at any cost", but you make my point about people complaining about the cost of the codes. The codes only pertained to places of assembly or multiple dwelling units - over 3 units, I believe.

<<<<< So maybe we should just put 100 firefighters on duty every night, right? Then just about whatever happens, the fire departments will be ready. Hey, you never know when a plane might crash into the Warwick Mall. Is Warwick prepared to handle that? Would a few more firefighters initially on the scene save more lives? Of course. >>>>>

Again, I never said to put 100 firefighters on every night in West Warwick (or Warwick for that matter). I pointed out that there were only 11 FF's in the whole town that night. If you think that's adequate and the citizens of West Warwick think that's OK, then keep it that way. The present proposals by the Gov would allow mayors and town managers to reduce their city or town's manning even further.

Also, West Warwick and many other cities and towns in this state allow fire trucks to respond to structure fires with 1 or 2 FF's on board on a routine basis. Do you think that's enough? I'm not proposing 10 FF's per truck. I would propose 4 FF's per truck. That is the "minimum" standard set forth by the NFPA. I understand that budgets are stretched, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to do any offensive firefighting or any search and rescue operations at a fire with 2 FF's - period.

<<<<< Yeah, we'd all love to have the most perfect safe lives, but there are costs involved and you do have to draw a line somewhere in balancing it out. Where that line should be is open for some debate. >>>>>

Yes it is open for debate. My opinion on this is drawn from 29 years of experience responding to fires and other emergencies and seeing first hand the devastation they bring. I know that many lives could be saved by having "adequately" staffed fire apparatus and fire departments. Not overly-staffed, but adequately staffed. I also realize that others are more concerned with cutting government spending and taxation. There is no clear cut answer. We can't make everyone 100% safe all of the time.

However, to further cut staffing in RI's fire departments would be disastrous.

No one here has yet addressed the political climate of West Warwick at the time of this tragedy.

For far too long, there was a climate of political privilege and a philosophy of what’s in it for me with the Station Fire being the end result.

I believe LaRoque was working 4 on, 3 off during this timeframe. He also had a side business as a contractor. I have yet to see a published account of exactly how much he earned that year but I believe it was in excess of $93,000. The Projo reported his base salary when he retired but never did delve deeper to ascertain exactly how much he receives in Pension benefits based upon actual earnings vice base salary. The people of the state should be up in arms.

As for the BS about the WWFD. The nearest fire station is less than a ½ mile up the road and the main station less than 5 minutes away. This is just a smoke screen to provide cover for what transpired.

If the then existing Fire Code had been enforced this tragedy might not have occurred.

If the Police Officer on duty had called in the WWFD, this might not have occurred.

It will be interesting to see what role Speaker Murphy and Rep Williamson play in any state bailout of the town.

After all this occurred in WW and just that should be enough for anyone to understand why the victims of this tragedy did not receive justice. WW was a entity unto itself where the rule of law never figured into the equation.

Biago,

I don't know anything about the political climate in WW at the time, nor do I know anything about the Fire Inspector's hours, businesses or his complicity or lack thereof in this tragedy. I would not attempt to defend him because I do not know the full story of his involvement. For this same reason I will not throw stones either.

I agree with you that had the existing Fire Codes been enforced this tragedy may not have occurred. As for the Police Officer's first call, it wouldn't have mattered much.

But I'm puzzled at what your statement, "As for the BS about the WWFD. The nearest station is less than 1/2 mile up the road and the main station less than 5 minutes away. This is just a smoke screen to provide cover for what transpired." means.

If you're stating that my arguement about the WWFD being woefully under-staffed that night (every night) is a smoke screen, I have to tell you that you are wrong on this account. There may be much more to this story, including political corruption (I don't know), but the staffing levels were the major factor in the enormity of the tragedy once the fire began. ONLY 3 FF's from the first station!! When the main station finally responds (5 minutes later!!! - that's an eternity in the fire service for response times) they bring another 4 FF's? At that time they probably had 4 vehicles there and only 6 or 7 FF's!

Again, you are right in the fact that THE major factor that evening was the noncmpliance to the existing Fire Codes - including occupancy.

Tom Kenney

I would exempt you or other firefighters from the charge of politicizing this tragedy. Your experience is needed to examine the various factors that led to such an appalling loss of life. I also would say that leasons learned from the staffing levels then would also be welcome as changes in minimum manning is being contemplated as a cost saving measure. I'd like to ask your opinion on a related matter. Just before the Station Fire Cranston mayor Laffey was making a lot of noise about ending the pratice of mutual aid claiming that Cranston was being short changed. In reading newspaper accounts after the fire in WW and the report that was reluctantly made public by the Governor's office there was praise for the rescue efforts of the many fire departments from surrounding communities. It seemed to me at the time that the mutual aid system had worked even though there was the loss of life. Any thoughts on mutual aid?

Tom,

The factor to which people are reacting, I think --- and this applies to the broader debate --- is that your primary and most forceful response to a story regarding inadequate fire inspections and endemic political corruption was to pivot off of the now-excessive fire codes to turn the conversation toward minimum manning. In that process, you skipped right past the fire official momentarily in the spotlight.

That looks single-minded and not a little suspicious. The sincerity of firefighter unions (not necessarily you in specific) must come into question when their members are not first among those decrying the failure to adequately inspect the building and to call for prosecution of that official. If safety were their primary concern, then the fact that "THE major factor that evening was the noncmpliance to the existing Fire Codes" would be the area of emphasis.

-----

Phil,

Ah, yes, I can see how reluctant you are to see the tragedy leveraged for political purposes...

Allow me to respond to Phil first...

Phil, RI's Mutual Aid Agreement for fire departments is the best system we can provide to allow sharing of personnel & apparatus in the event of a major emergency or for an occassional instance of a city or town's resources being otherwise tied up on a number of smaller and more ordinary types of calls. It (Mutual Aid) is a great thing. This is the primary reason fire departments like WWFD or Warwick Fire Dept., etc. don't need to have a hundred firefighters on duty at all times.

The system, however, is overused and overly depended upon for the wrong reasons. For instance, Providence abuses the system when it comes to Rescues. The number of times that there are 6 or more Rescues from out-of-town (in addition to Providence's 6 Rescues) busy on calls in the city is staggering. Many times N Providence or Cranston or some other town would have all their Rescues in Prov while leaving their citizens to rely on Mutual Aid from another town if they are in need of EMS. In the EMS side of the equation Providence is, by far, the biggest abuser of the system.

The fire side of the agreement is another thing altogether. On this side, the smaller cities and towns are the ones who overly rely on Mutual Aid. They are forced to because a single fire in their community uses all of their resources. Relying on the system for this purpose is what the Mutual Aid system is designed for.

The problem with relying too heavily on the system is that there has NEVER BEEN A SINGLE INSTANCE where fire companies responding on Mutual Aid have saved a life. If you think about it you'll realize that this makes sense as rescuing a person from fire is an extremely time-critical endeavor. Fire related Mutual Aid is designed to allow fire companies from another city or town stand by at one of your fire stations in the event of a secondary fire or emergency or to respond as additional resources at an unusually large incident.

Mayors or town managers (as well as the general public) who believe that their Mutual Aid agreement will keep their citizens safe are under the wrong impression.

So, in the case of the Station Nightclub fire the system worked exremely well for the transport and care of EMS patients. On the fire side, however, Mutual Aid had no meaningful effect. The only thing that could have had at least some effect on the fire & rescue side of the coin would have been more firefighters responding from West Warwick on the initial alarm. By the time anyone from out of town responded to the scene it was too late for most of the victims to be rescued.

Justin,

I would strongly (and I suspect the majority of my fire department, union and non-union brothers and sisters would also) support prosecution of the Fire Inspector "if" he knowingly overlooked or disregarded any of the code violations for which he is accused. I say "if" because I just don't have a clue as to what transpired at the times of the previous inspections. This is not a cover-up or an excuse on my part but merely the fact. I don't know.

I have a strong suspicion that none of the individuals here or in the general public have any specific knowledge of what actually transpired and what Insp. LaRocque did or didn't do.

It is my opinion that many people who believe that the big, bad unions had a hand in pressuring the AG into protecting him are giving unions in this state more power than they could possibly weild. I realize that there are those in this state who think that everything is a cover-up and that unions run everything. Obviously their opinion is going to difer from mine. Let someone step forward with evidence.

If there was any "special considerations" for the club regarding inspections or occupancy standards, etc. I would suspect that it would be just as likely to point at the political figures in the town as anyone else.

As for the "now-excessive fire codes", we are going to difer on this subject forever, Justin. I, as most individuals in the fire service, have always been for stricter fire codes and enforcement of these codes. We have long lobbied for sprinkler systems, better alarm systems and stricter building codes. For instance, and this is something you will understand Justin (being in the construction/carpentry business), we have long lobbied for the banning of truss roofs. Although they are very dependable under normal conditions they fail extremely fast under fire conditions. This is because of the fact that if one element of the truss fails, the entire section will fail. Also, the wood truss joints are connected via gusset plates that only penetrate the wood by about 1/8". Once the wood is charred by that small amount the truss fails. Many firefighters have lost their lives due to the premature collapse of truss roofs over the past twenty or so years.

I point this out to illustrate that we, those in the fire service, are actively concerned in every aspect of fire safety for ourselves and for the general public. Who will be the advocates for this type of safety standard if not us? When you are considering safety codes regarding electricity you consult an electrician, correct?

You state, and you are not alone in your opinion, that the new state fire codes are excessive. Well, there are two factors in life safety with regards to fire - compliance to adequate fire codes and the response of an adequately trained and staffed fire department.

It sounds like you would like to repeal some of the codes for financial considerations. Certainly the Governor wants to reduce minimum staffing levels for budgetary reasons. These two factors are under scrutiny right now and a very big safety concern for those of us who are experts in the field. That is why I mentioned the staffing.

I have an expertise in these fields. I have no knowledge to condemn nor to defend the fire inspector. I cannot shine any meaningful light on that issue. That is why I seem to have "skipped right past" that issue.

With regard to the cause of the fire, it's pretty simple.

The fire prevention laws on the books at the time of the Station fire were perfectly adequate. In terms of preventing future Station fires, the recent change to Rhode Island fire laws accomplished absolutely nothing. The problem was enforcement, not the laws themselves.

The Station was repeatedly inspected by a fire official, Denis LaRocque. So clearly, minimal manning was not an issue.

If the laws on the books had been enforced by the fire official charged with the duty to do so, the Station fire would not have occurred. Either the foam would have been abated and the occupancy level would have been reasonable (both factors permitting everyone to exit in time) or the venue would have been closed down long before the Great White concert.

Monique,

I am not about to argue about the fact that if the existing fire codes were followed that evening and enforced during inspections that this fire wouldn't have occured. You're right, it wouldn't have happened.

You are mistaken, however, when you state that the new fire codes would have "accomplished absolutely nothing". A working sprinkler system would have changed the whole scenario.

Also, and I'm trying to stay calm, but how can you state "...clearly minimal manning was not an issue"????

It was not an issue in the cause of the fire. It was, however, a HUGE issue on the number of lives lost.

The fire prevention laws on the books at the time of the Station fire were perfectly adequate.

And when codes (or enforcement) fail, 6 men on the first three trucks isn't going to cut it.

Exactly, EMT. The point of fire prevention laws is that it is far more effective and less destructive to not have a fire at all than to try to put one out once it has started.

But, no amount of enforcement of any degree of any fire codes will prevent all fires. Therefore, to say that minimum staffing requirements are not an issue is a foolish statement.

Minimum staffing levels and state fire codes are the "minimum" standards that the law allows. They are however, almost without exception, the everyday working standards. No fire department, and almost no builder or building owner, ever exceed the "minimum" requirements.

The point of fire prevention laws is that it is far more effective and less destructive to not have a fire at all than to try to put one out once it has started.

It's pretty foolish to advocate fire suppression staffing based on the assumption that codes are foolproof.