I. Identify and explain four (4) logistical alternatives Scanlan could have addressed. The Centralia, Illinois 1947 disaster changed the way safety procedures, laws and regulations were enforced. According to Fanning, F. (2007) “many public sector safety professionals from state and federal agencies knew of the hazards as a result of inspections, union complaints and letters to state officials” (www.usmra.com/repository/best-of-the-best_newsletter_article). At the time Scanlan, the inspector of the district concluded on the numerous hazards surrounding the mine. Scanlan reported those findings of a possible explosion to other professionals but all failed to follow safety procedures and allowed the men to continue with the job. Instead of listening to Robert Medill the director of the Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, Scanlan should have directly reported his findings to the Governor of Illinois, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, and the State Mine Board to ensure safety measures and further investigations were established (www.usmra.com/repository/best-of-the-best_newsletter_article). Also, Scanlan had the power to shut down the mining operation but chose to be bullied by Robert Medill. All inspectors and professionals handling the case were aware of coal dust buildup and the necessity to clean it to prevent any explosions (www.usmra.com/repository/best-of-the-best_newsletter_article).
II. Analyze and discuss Scanlan’s motivation toward the Constitution (the law), bureaucracy (as a public administrator responsible to the public), and obligation.

Scanlan’s motivation toward the Constitution, bureaucracy, and obligation were all correlated. It seems as though he was concerned about the results of the inspections and to some degree desired to resolve the problems appropriately by addressing the Robert Medill, the director. However, Scanlan failed to take matters to further ensure that the proper procedures established and viewed seriously. Stivers, C. (1994) stated that “developing the capacity to listen well promotes accountability by helping administrators to hear neglected voices and engage in reciprocal communication with the public; it promotes effectiveness by deepening our understanding of complex situations and facilitating approaches” (www.jstor.org/discover). The miners and all citizens count on its government and public officials to have their best interests at heart and notify them of any issues or concerns that threaten work or living conditions. Scanlan and the other professionals that were involved in this case lacked responsibility, technical knowledge and were only concerned about getting the mining operation done regardless if lives could have been at stake.

III. Take a position on two (2) possible paths of action for Scanlan and defend your choices.

The two possible Paths of action for Scanlan were to address federal, state, and local mining authorities and to utilize his own power of postponing the operation until proper protocol took place. The investigative reports indicated that mining laws were being violated and although Scanlan communicated with the superintendent to shut down and clean up, he should have taken effective measures to correct all concerns. Stillman, R. (2010) found that “since no Illinois law forbids a company or an individual to contribute secretly to a political campaign, we are dealing with a question of political morality, not legality” (p. 41). Scanlan’s best option was to resign, due to the fact that so many illegal and unethical things were going on that it was ultimately out of his hands. The coal companies and government were controlling the miners with money, which means that no one had the miner’s best interest at hand. The main priority was getting the operation done and not following the law and proper protocol. In essence, Scanlan was not the only professional that was held accountable for the deaths of the 111 men.

References
Fanning, F. (2007). Best of the best newsletter article. Retrieved April 22, 2012, from http://www.usmra.com/repository/best-of-the-best_newsletter_article
Stillman, R. (2010). Public Administration: Concepts and Cases: (9th ed). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Stivers, C. (1994). The listening Bureaucrat: responsiveness in public administration. http://www.jstor.org/discover