IBJNews

State fair's plan short on evacuation details

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

An emergency response plan drafted 10 months before the Indiana State Fair's deadly stage collapse details how staff should handle evacuations, but it doesn't spell out the precise scenarios that would trigger an evacuation, newly released documents indicate.

The 71-page emergency plan released Wednesday by fair officials describes more than a dozen situations, including severe weather, shootings and fires, that would prompt fair officials to activate their emergency protocols. But the exact conditions that would require the need for an evacuation are not clearly defined in the document, which leaves the final decision on evacuations up to fair officials.

"It really comes down to a matter of judgment," fair spokeswoman Stephanie McFarland said.

Fair officials released the plan, along with numerous other documents related to the company that installed the stage rigging and an insurance policy, in response to public records requests from The Associated Press and other media outlets.

On Aug. 13, as fairgoers awaited the scheduled start of a concert by country music duo Sugarland, stage riggings collapsed as high winds swept into Indianapolis ahead of a severe storm. Four people were killed immediately, and three later died from their injuries.

Dozens of others were injured, and several face long recoveries, including a young mother who remains in a coma, a 10-year-old girl who suffered a brain injury and a teenage tennis player with a spine injury.

Two days after the collapse, fair officials said fair executive director Cindy Hoye and a state trooper were headed toward the stage to order an evacuation when the rigging toppled and narrowly missed Hoye.

Kenneth J. Allen, an attorney who's suing on behalf of some stage collapse victims, said Wednesday that the fair's emergency response plan, which was drafted in October 2010, was shortsighted and played a role in what he called a preventable tragedy.

"This is a very foreseeable disaster. We know what the weather can be like this time of year in central Indiana. We know that those winds are sufficient to cause this kind of an episode. And they knew specifically that those winds and that storm was heading directly for the fair," he said.

McFarland, the fair spokeswoman, declined to comment on Allen's statements and noted that the state has hired Witt Associates, a Washington-based public safety and crisis management firm, to analyze the fair's preparedness and response to the stage collapse.

"That question will have to be answered when Witt Associates has finished their investigation," she said.

Allen said he was disturbed by a portion of the emergency plan that spells out how staff should handle the aftermath of a fair emergency. One section focusing on emergency communications states: "Remember the big picture! The crisis will end and you want to resume 'business as usual' as quickly as possible."

He said it appeared to him to focus more on the goal of keeping fair events running than on preventing harm to fairgoers.

The fair closed for one day after the collapse, then reopened with a memorial service for the victims. State officials including Gov. Mitch Daniels stressed that the incident didn't change the fair's reputation as "the finest event of its kind in America."

McFarland said the wording in the emergency plan's communication section on what staff should or not say to fairgoers after an emergency comes from the general guidance of how to handle crisis management.

"That's kind of the general template guidance you'll find in a number of crisis communication textbooks and expert publications," she said.

An insurance policy released Wednesday by fair officials insured the fair for business losses in the event that evening concerts scheduled during four days of the 17-day fair were rained out.

That policy insured the fair for up to $1.45 million if all of those concerts were rained out, but contained no provision for severe weather such as winds and lightning. It specifies that the fair could claim up to $355,000 in losses if rains had canceled the Sugarland and other concerts scheduled for Aug. 13, the day of the stage collapse.

McFarland said the precipitation that night was not enough to meet the policy's criteria, of rainfall of a third of an inch or more.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT