Engineer for third rate, brokered AM daytimer manages to burn down island

[dbdigital]

To add some clarity as to what happened, here is a partially quoted description of the events which led to the Catalina fire from the L.A. Radio website:

“According to a published report supplemented by information from the island, a tower contractor hired by KBRT had been warned against using a cutting torch because of dry brush fire danger. While the station's transmitter engineer, Bill Agresta, was inside the transmitter building and temporarily away from the work site, the contractor used a gasoline-powered circular saw to cut metal, and sparks from the blade apparently ignited the brush,” according to Gonsett. ??
His report continues: “Bill reportedly said he saw a small blaze when he went outside the transmitter building.Then he ran back inside to call 911. By the time he went outside again, the fire had moved several hundred feet downhill and engulfed the contractor's tool truck – the blackened hulk of which remained at the site as of Saturday. Commercial power and telco lines feeding the ‘KBRT Ranch’ [as the transmitter site is known] were destroyed in the fire.The station resumed operations Sunday using its own power generator and CDs hand-carried to the island for programming.Meanwhile, Bill Agresta is nursing some fractured ribs suffered when one of the construction workers commandeered his tractor and accidentally ran into him during the fire melee.”

http://www.laradio.com/

Whoever (or whomever) is ultimately fingered for blame, those workmen sound like people who is just stupid enough to be dangerous.

db

 

[John McNary]

Kent, a radio station engineer hiring a crew is not the same as a homeowner doing a construction project. An engineer is by definition a workplace supervisor. A homeowner is a customer, an engineer is a a supervisor.

Big difference.

The fact that an engineer - not a mere customer, but the station's chief engineer - was at the site and actively managing the operation is evidence that KBRT is responsible.

A chief engineer at a work site does not have to be standing over the shoulder of each worker at each moment to evade responsibility.

If this is a case of stupid workmen ignoring the KBRT engineer's instructions when the engineer went to a different portion of the same project, then the KBRT engineer is responsible not only for having hired bad workers, but for having left them unsupervised.

The presence of a station management employee, actively supervising a work crew, is damning evidence.

 

[John McNary]

So, those of us who buy our electricity from Southern California Edison also have a big multimillion dollar bill thanks to KBRT:

ROSEMEAD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Southern California Edison (SCE) crews this afternoon fired up a temporary one million watt generator capable of providing the electricity needed by interior Catalina communities until the infrastructure destroyed by last week’s wildfire can be rebuilt.

"Our first priority is temporarily restoring power to those hardest hit by the fire while our crews continue the challenging process of setting more than 100 new poles and stringing thousands of feet of new wire across the island's tough terrain," said Ron Litzinger, SCE senior vice president of transmission and distribution.

The wildfire that began May 10 destroyed much of the electrical infrastructure that delivers power from SCE’s Pebbly Beach Generating Station to interior communities and camp grounds. To provide temporary power, SCE secured yesterday a large industrial generator and high-voltage transformer that were shipped to Catalina and installed today at SCE’s substation near Two Harbors. The generator began supplying power to interior customers at 4 p.m. today.

The 35-ton generator-transformer installation will provide power to interior customers whose connection to the SCE grid and substation was not destroyed by the fire. Other communities that cannot be fed from the generator’s location, such as White’s Landing and Toyon, will continue using their own generators until infrastructure repairs are made.

SCE crews have completed their initial assessment of one of the island’s two interior electrical circuits. A detailed assessment of the second will be completed later this week. The island’s third circuit, which primarily serves Avalon, was largely undamaged by the fire.

Augmenting SCE’s Catalina-based personnel are 51 electric distribution construction and maintenance personnel, 23 trucks, a utility crane, and other heavy equipment on loan from SCE utility service centers in Santa Ana, Santa Monica, Dominguez Hills, South Bay, Long Beach, Whittier and Kernville. SCE crews are working extended hours.

SCE will be bringing in heavy-lift aircraft this weekend to assist with power pole sets in rough terrain.

SCE crews have restored all gas service with the exception of approximately 10 unoccupied homes. These customers will receive service once turn-on appointments can be made.

The island’s fresh drinking water supply is normal. SCE crews continue to make progress repairing portions of the water infrastructure that were damaged by the fire. SCE portable generators are powering some drinking water wells and pumps until electrical service to the interior can be restored.

 

[davideduardo]

The fact that an engineer - not a mere customer, but the station's chief engineer - was at the site and actively managing the operation is evidence that KBRT is responsible.

I asked around of some SBE members and was told that there was "no engineer I know of" who could supervise or direct an antenna construction or repair project, as the issues there are mechanical engineering and way beyond the competence of broadcast engineers... most, with the current awarness of liability and litigation, would not even think of telling a tower crew what to do.

The engineer represented the customer, the owner of KBRT.

The KBRT engineer was there to insure OSHA compliance of maximum RF levels in and around a tower being worked on... in essence, he would be controlling transmitter TPO and the amount of pwer in each tower while the crew was working on the tower.

Most stations have ONLY a chief engineer. So the chief engineer is the only engineer.

 

[John McNary]

It doesn't matter if the employee has skills that the supervisor does not possess.

KBRT hired the crew. KBRT hired the engineer. KBRT's contract crew - working at the company's behest and coordinating closely with an onsite company representative - performed an act that at best was highly-negligent and is arguably criminal.

If the KBRT contract crew ignored the engineer's directions not to use the rotary saw, then KBRT was negligent in allowing unqualified, dangerous people to work unsupervised at its property.

KBRT is totally, 100 percent responsible for what its employees or agents do on its behalf, at its facilities. The entire "contractor" issue is irrelevant.

The failure of the company to properly oversee its employees, working on its facilities, cost the taxpayers millions and could have cost lives.

And that reflects on its character and ability to serve in the public interest as a trustee of the public airwaves.

 

[EDwalker]

Re: Current K-BRNT temperature: 740 degrees


Why do you refuse to put any responsibility on the tower crew?

Since you're soon becoming an attorney - this reminds me of an old saying: you know what they call the last
in the class graduating medical school:

"doctor"

 

[John McNary]

Re: Current K-BRNT temperature: 740 degrees

Why do you refuse to put any responsibility on the tower crew?

Because the tower crew doesn't hold an FCC license for a radio station, and this forum is about radio stations. I never said the tower crew is innocent. They are as guilty as K-BURNT.

But you should see me excorciating comments about Larry, Moe and Curly I made over at www.towerriggersworkingforthirdratebroadcasters.com . Click on "idiot radio station engineer manages to cause riggers to burn down island".

 

[Kent]

Kent, a radio station engineer hiring a crew is not the same as a homeowner doing a construction project. An engineer is by definition a workplace supervisor. A homeowner is a customer, an engineer is a a supervisor.

John, I worked as a deputy for the State of Missouri's version of the DLSE for roughly a year and a half. I made determinations like this on an almost daily basis. An engineer or a radio station may be a customer of a tower construction company, just like I would be a customer of a home construction company. He doesn't have the right to supervise this other company, other than that he has to approve the end result. The only control a business may have over an independent contractor is control over the end result. A chief engineer, by definition, supervises engineers and the technical operation of the station. That's about the limit of his supervision. Construction of the tower, by the way, is NOT a technical operation or an engineering function. If you don't believe me, check the North American Industrial Classification System. The chief engineer can't tell the PD which songs to play, and he can't tell a construction company how to do its job. By the way, the chief engineer of a radio station doesn't even have to be an employee of a radio station unless the station is a directional AM or an AM with 10,000 watts or more of power. The FCC recognizes that the continuous presence of an engineer is not necessary at many lower power and FM stations. However, if a radio station contracts out the chief engineer responsibilities, it better make sure the relationship doesn't looking anything like employment. It's too much detail to go into here, but it can be done and is done by a lot of broadcasters.

The fact that an engineer - not a mere customer, but the station's chief engineer - was at the site and actively managing the operation is evidence that KBRT is responsible.

A chief engineer at a work site does not have to be standing over the shoulder of each worker at each moment to evade responsibility.

Again, you're basing your opinion on a nonissue. Who was present at the site is not the central question. If this matter were even in dispute (which it's not, at least not by anyone but you), the central question would be who owned the tower construction equipment. If Crawford owned the tower construction equipment, I would agree with you 100%. By owning the construction equipment, Crawford would have the right to protect its investment, which means it, or its representative, could tell the workers how to use that equipment. If the tower crew used its own equipment, the crew is the responsible party for the same reason. The equipment belongs to the crew, and Crawford would not be able to tell the crew members how to use it because they need to be able to protect their investment. In other words, Crawford would have no right to tell them to do anything with their equipment as Crawford would not be responsible if it were damaged.

If this is a case of stupid workmen ignoring the KBRT engineer's instructions when the engineer went to a different portion of the same project, then the KBRT engineer is responsible not only for having hired bad workers, but for having left them unsupervised.

The presence of a station management employee, actively supervising a work crew, is damning evidence.

Nope. The central question is who owned the construction equipment, and you can bet it wasn't Crawford. I've never worked for a radio station that owned its own tower construction equipment. Because the crew was almost certain to own its own equipment, which means Crawford or its representative(s) had no right to tell them how to use it, the crew, not the engineer or licensee, is responsible. This issue is very cut and dry.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Never heard of Crawford? Read on...

But since you mention it, yeahy, I think Crawford Broadcasting - whom I have never heard of until this fire - is not fit to hold a broadcast license.

Crawford is the 55th largest broadcaster in the US, and wons 26 stations. They have been owners since at least the late 50's, something like 48 years, and have an excellent engineering record. In fact, the company has an internal engineering newletter for all its technical staff to keep them updated on techniques, equipment, FCC rules, etc.

The fact that you have not heard of them does not mean they are not qualified, consistently reputable broadcasters. Look at http://www.crawfordbroadcasting.com and read the history section. Crawford is a nice example of a motivated family which used radio to further their beliefs by providing outlets for a specific kind of religious content. Then, look at the engineering section which shows how important both performance and compliance is to this company.

There are many radio facilities in the US which are not competitve for general market programming and which do niche formats that serve smaller segments. In the case of KBRT, serving evangelical Christians with Teaching & Preaching is an appropriate use for such a facility... just as all-Farsi programming is appropriate for KIRN-670 or all-Vietnamese is for KVNR-1480.

Many have explained to you that broadcast engineers do not do tower work, nor do they supervise it. The fact that an accident occured is unfortunate, but does not reflect in any way on Crawford being anything but a responsible family-owned independent broadcaster with high standards.

 

[John McNary]

Yup. You accurately sum up with this is all about. A third-rate operation commits a negligent act and proves it is not of character to hold the license.

I stand behind every word of what I "spewed" about K-BURNT, and the more I learn of them, the sicker to my stomach I get.

And Kent, anyone who cannot tell the difference between a corporate entity hiring outside help, and a homeowner hiring a construction contractor, has no business opining about law.

To say an engineer of a radio station may be a customer of a tower construction company, but doesn't have the right to supervise this other company is just about the stupidest thing I have ever seen. A contractor most assuredly works for the hiring company, and the fact that a contractor was on the site does absolutely nothing to ameliorate the owner's responsibilities to follow the law.

That is just an outrageously stupid statement on its face. Do you think for a second the FCC would accept "I would have fixed that inoperative tower light, except I hired an independent contractor who was supposed to do it, and he's incompetent, so you can't blame me" as an excuse?

Does a homeowner get a "pass" for shoddy work merely because he can blame an independent contractor for having done work below code? Of course not.

And this is not a house. It is a workplace, where a company hired a contractor as its agent. The company is responsible. Period.

The current owner of K-NOT-SO-BRIGHT is the son of the original Crawford, and the stations chain was apparently broken up so that each prodigal son could have a franchise money changing branch in the temples. A search of conversations about Crawford in this very forum reveals that bunch to be widely regarded within the dollars-for-jesus-hucksters world as fringe operators, even by that low-life standard of acceptable behavior.

And irregardless of my feelings about those charlatans, the unassailable and irrefutable facts remains that a third rate, brokered AM radio station managed to cost me and the other taxpayers of Los Angeles County and ratepayers of SC Edison and the businesses of Avalon about $10 million in firefighting, utility repair and lost business expenses.

I hope they lose their shirts. And their K-DIM license.

 

[Kent]

And Kent, anyone who cannot tell the difference between a corporate entity hiring outside help, and a homeowner hiring a construction contractor, has no business opining about law.

To say an engineer of a radio station may be a customer of a tower construction company, but doesn't have the right to supervise this other company is just about the stupidest thing I have ever seen. A contractor most assuredly works for the hiring company, and the fact that a contractor was on the site does absolutely nothing to ameliorate the owner's responsibilities to follow the law.

That is just an outrageously stupid statement on its face. Do you think for a second the FCC would accept "I would have fixed that inoperative tower light, except I hired an independent contractor who was supposed to do it, and he's incompetent, so you can't blame me" as an excuse?

Does a homeowner get a "pass" for shoddy work merely because he can blame an independent contractor for having done work below code? Of course not.

First of all, thank you for the good words, John. Just remember, the law is very clear, and it's on my side on this one, not yours. I dealt with far more of these issues in a year and a half than you probably ever will. If you tried to argue a case like this in front of the DLSE, you'd be laughed out of the room! Outside help, by the way, is a synonym for independent contractor, which, as I said before, means no control over the methods used on the job. The dispute in front of DLSE hearings is whether someone is using outside help or hiring its own employees and trying to pass them off as outside help. So, you've just said as much as that Crawford had no right to control this tower crew, and you didn't even realize it! You might want to watch your mouth if arguing a case in court! Remember, he who loses it loses!

Also, no, the FCC would not accept the tower light excuse because the company who hires the contractor has to approve the end result. In other words, they check the tower light and see if it works. If it doesn't work, they tell them to fix it. Besides, if the first contractor they called wasn't available to fix the light in a timely manner, they have the option of calling another one. A homeowner must also approve an independent contractor's work after it is done. If the work is not up to code, the homeowner is expected to notify the contractor it need to be brought up to code and doesn't approve the work until it meets code requirements. That's why a homeowner gets no free pass if the work is done below code, and it's also why you hire a separate inspection company. However, that is not the same issue here. While the end result was a destructive fire, Crawford didn't have the right to tell the tower crew which of their equipment to use or how to use it when they were working.

I can think of a few ways the residents of Catalina Island could go after Crawford for the fire, and I'm not making the case that they should be blameless. However, your idea that Crawford had the right to tell a tower crew how to do its job and, thus, could have averted this on the spot simply doesn't fly.

 

[John McNary]

First of all, thank you for the good words, John. Just remember, the law is very clear, and it's on my side on this one, not yours. I dealt with far more of these issues in a year and a half than you probably ever will. If you tried to argue a case like this in front of the DLSE, you'd be laughed out of the room!

Agreed, this is not a DLSE case at all.

It is a criminal negligence case, and labor laws are wholey inapplicable.

Outside help, by the way, is a synonym for independent contractor, which, as I said before, means no control over the methods used on the job.

Absolutely false. There is no indemnity of any sort for criminal law violations made by a company's agents.

Ralph's Supermarkets got fined when its subcontractors were violating wage and hour act standards when floor cleaners were being worked unmercifully.

The dispute in front of DLSE hearings is whether someone is using outside help or hiring its own employees and trying to pass them off as outside help. So, you've just said as much as that Crawford had no right to control this tower crew, and you didn't even realize it! You might want to watch your mouth if arguing a case in court! Remember, he who loses it loses!

Kent, who said anything about KBRT violating labor laws? I accuse them of violating fire codes. DLSE has nothing to do with that.

Labor law is an administrative court, the standards of evidence and burdens of proof are totally different, and this is not a matter of labor law.

However, that is not the same issue here. While the end result was a destructive fire, Crawford didn't have the right to tell the tower crew which of their equipment to use or how to use it when they were working.

Respectfully, you are out of your element here. KBRT either was criminally negligent for hiring a subcontractor who recklessly and criminally caused a $10 million, life-threatening blaze. Or, it was criminally negligent for its employee overseeing a project at which its agents - irrespective of the exact nature of the employment contract - caused a horrible fire (and drove over the KBRT keystone cop in charge with his own tractor, while their crew truck burned).

Your idea that Crawford had the right to tell a tower crew how to do its job and, thus, could have averted this on the spot simply doesn't fly.

Crawford not only had the right to ensure the job was done legally and safely, it had the obligation to.

Its utter failure to follow basic safety and fire rules in a most-egregious manner shows it to be of unfit character to hold the license as a public trustee.

 

[John McNary]

KBRT forecast for Catalina tonight: 60% blacked out, with occasional flareups.

I do not have a personal problem with God, but I certainly agree with John when it comes to Crawford Broadcasting. But since they probably pull no more than 0.1 in any Arbitron book, why not just leave them alone. You will not change the minds of their audience John, by this constant ridicule. Their tiny audience is hooked on them and that's the way it is and always will be. I do not think that this topic is worth seven pages on radio-info.com

One man's constant ridicule is another man's dinnertime talk.

And I look forward to seeing someone challenge the license based on the unfitness of the licensee to hold it.

Hmmmm, what would I do with AM 740?

Rebroadcast Marine channel 8, with people calling the Avalon water taxi for a ride to the bars? Nah.

LAX already has a TIS station. Probably more people listen to it than KBRT.

Maybe an all-whale-calls station? I got it: wounded baitfish noises. Boaters up and down the ocast could play it really loud to attract yellowtail.

Nah.

Given its daytime signal, and recent history, I would probably run an all-OSHA safety tips format, with tradeouts with SCE for the next 400 years to pay for all the scorched island circuitry.

 

[vsa]

Let me repeat for emphasis:

John McNary wrote on 5/18/07: "...I think Crawford Broadcasting - whom I have never heard of until this fire - is not fit to hold a broadcast license."

John McNary wrote on 5/13/07: "...There's been a house there for decades, dating from the old KBIG days. The engineer probably gets it instead of pay, knowing that cheapskate outfit..."

 

[John McNary]

Crawford? Like in Crawford Texas? Figures.

Crawford is the 55th largest broadcaster in the US, and wons 26 stations. They have been owners since at least the late 50's, something like 48 years, and have an excellent engineering record. In fact, the company has an internal engineering newletter for all its technical staff to keep them updated on techniques, equipment, FCC rules, etc.

Yeah, I can imagine the agenda at Crawford engineering division corporate meetings:

2007 Crawford Engineering Seminar
Holiday Inn, Olathe Kansas

9:30 Group purchases of red noses, trap door buckets and suspenders

10:30 OSHA regulations and how to prop up the sodey-pop machine with them.

11:30 On buying insurance - lots of it.

1:30 Tractor driving lessons

2:30 How to keep the chickens out of the transmitter dog house.

3:30 Industry trends: polarity and what it means to you.

4:30:00 Prayer time

4:30:30 Check cashing time

 

[Kent]

Absolutely false. There is no indemnity of any sort for criminal law violations made by a company's agents.

Again, indepedent contractors are not a company's agents.

Ralph's Supermarkets got fined when its subcontractors were violating wage and hour act standards when floor cleaners were being worked unmercifully.

Different issue. Ralph's paid a settlement because it was determined that they had misclassified the janitors as subcontractors when they should have been employees. The rule was that Encompass Staffing Service was not the actual employer of the janitors because Ralph's and a few other stores were the parties who actually controlled the methods and means of accomplishing their work.

Kent, who said anything about KBRT violating labor laws? I accuse them of violating fire codes. DLSE has nothing to do with that.

No one, including me, said anything about KBRT violating labor laws. What you had said was that Crawford controlled the actions of this other company when, in fact, under labor laws, they didn't even have the right to do so let alone the ability.

Respectfully, you are out of your element here. KBRT either was criminally negligent for hiring a subcontractor who recklessly and criminally caused a $10 million, life-threatening blaze. Or, it was criminally negligent for its employee overseeing a project at which its agents - irrespective of the exact nature of the employment contract - caused a horrible fire (and drove over the KBRT keystone cop in charge with his own tractor, while their crew truck burned).

Temper, temper! I love it when someone knows they've been beaten! The amateurish cheap shot is noted. Labor law violations may not apply, but you can use labor laws to tell exactly what the relationship among the parties was. I was simply telling you that Crawford had no legal right to direct and control the tower workers' methods of accomplishing the job and, thus, were not overseeing it. You've already effectively conceded that point by calling them "outside help."

By the way, if you're curious, the way I would attack Crawford if I were suing them is that they should have known better than to bring in a tower crew in such dry conditions. After all, they should have some idea of the methods and means used to work on towers, even though they couldn't legally control them, and they should have known the potential risks.

 

[John McNary]

Different issue at Ralph's? "Ralph's paid a settlement because it was determined that they had misclassified the janitors as subcontractors when they should have been employees. The rule was that Encompass Staffing Service was not the actual employer of the janitors because Ralph's and a few other stores were the parties who actually controlled the methods and means of accomplishing their work."

Just where has it been established that KBRT's engineer, who was on the work site, was not supervising the contract crew?

And you are telling me that the engineer of a radio station on the scene of a major rerigging was not overseeing the methods and means of accomplishing the work?

I've been through a major alphabet network station putting up their new tower on Mt Wilson. Our chief engineer was intimately involved. Our chief engineer oversaw the contractors installing new computer servers. Hell, our chief engineer would go out on the sidewalk to oversee DWP crews putting in a new transformer outside the building.

And if KBRT's engineer was on the scene and not overseeing properly the operation, then that is per se evidence of the company's negligence.

Here, we have evidence that KBRT's engineer told the crew what tools to use, and then turned his back on them only to find them disobeying his directive.

Bringing in outside help does not mean all legal responsibility is transferred to them. KBRT had a legal obligation to follow fire and occupational safety laws, which obviously were broken. Doesn't matter which employee or temporary contract worker broke the law on KBRT's behalf. KBRT is responsible.

To argue otherwise is to suggest that any person or company can evade a law merely by hiring a contractor to do the dirty deed. Ridiculous.

And gratuitous cheap shots are what makes this world go round, you overstuffed shirt.

 

[dbdigital]

Of course, it's entirely possible that we don't know all of the facts surrounding the starting of this blaze. In the course of the investigation some facts may come to light that have not yet been made public. In the end, it will be up to the county prosecutor to determine if only the contractor is responsible or if KBRT should also be held accountable for some reason.

I highly suspect, though, that regardless of the who is ultimately held responsible, KBRT will be hit with a very stiff fine for something like, not sufficiently clearing away dry brush from the antenna site or not having the proper extinguishing equipment on the premises. It seems to me that the CE could have done more than simply dial 911, but who knows.

I don't think they'll get away from this disaster squeaky clean. The station should just be thankful that no loss of life occurred.

db

 

[Kent]

Different issue at Ralph's?

Correct. The issue with Ralph's was that they had classified their janitors as subcontractors when, under the law, they had to be classified as employees because Ralph's was directing and controlling the janitors' work schedule and pay. Subcontractor, remember, means no control other than to approve the end result of the work. Pretty much all radio operators, and this almost certainly includes Crawford, use tower crews that are legitimate subcontractors. Tower construction companies are responsible for directing and controlling their own employees.

Just where has it been established that KBRT's engineer, who was on the work site, was not supervising the contract crew?

The law specifically says a company has no legal right to supervise subcontractors. If KBRT's engineer was supervising the crew, the crew was not a legimate subcontractor.

And you are telling me that the engineer of a radio station on the scene of a major rerigging was not overseeing the methods and means of accomplishing the work?

If the radio station is using a legitimate business to do its tower work, the engineer has no right to oversee the methods and means of accomplishing the work. Not only does he not have the right, but he probably doesn't even have the ability. Advanced tower work takes an incredible amount of skill, and most engineers simply lack it. As an example, if you mishandle the gin pole at the top of a tower, you will not only take the tower down, but you will also fall to your death. Tower crews risk their lives on an almost daily basis. If I worked on a tower crew, I would not let a radio station's engineer tell me how to handle the gin pole!

And if KBRT's engineer was on the scene and not overseeing properly the operation, then that is per se evidence of the company's negligence.

He does not have the legal right to oversee the methods and means by which the tower crew peformed its job. That law you didn't even know about until I pointed it out to you roughly 48 hours ago clearly states that!

Bringing in outside help does not mean all legal responsibility is transferred to them. KBRT had a legal obligation to follow fire and occupational safety laws, which obviously were broken. Doesn't matter which employee or temporary contract worker broke the law on KBRT's behalf. KBRT is responsible.

As I've said before, I'm not saying Crawford should be blameless. I can see some ways to attack Crawford's liability in this case. My point is simply that the engineer could not supervise the tower crew because, assuming Crawford subcontracted the work, which we pretty well know they did, Crawford did not have any legal right to direct and control the tower crew. If the engineer was supervising the crew, there are labor standards issues involved, and Crawford should be 100% responsible.

To argue otherwise is to suggest that any person or company can evade a law merely by hiring a contractor to do the dirty deed. Ridiculous.

For the third time (second time in this post), I am not arguing Crawford should be blameless in this case, nor have I ever said a person or company can evade a law by hiring a contractor. In fact, we've agreed a radio station would not escape liability for a broken tower light by blaming a contractor for not fixing it properly because they have to approve the end result before the job is offically complete.

And gratuitous cheap shots are what makes this world go round, you overstuffed shirt.

Temper, temper! It seems you're forgetting the first rule of debate and need to be reminded again: he who loses it loses! If I hand you another shovel, will you dig twice as fast? Of course, maybe I am out of my element since I had hands-on experience applying certain labor laws, and you denied they even existed until I showed you!

 

[Kent]

Of course, it's entirely possible that we don't know all of the facts surrounding the starting of this blaze. In the course of the investigation some facts may come to light that have not yet been made public. In the end, it will be up to the county prosecutor to determine if only the contractor is responsible or if KBRT should also be held accountable for some reason.

I highly suspect, though, that regardless of the who is ultimately held responsible, KBRT will be hit with a very stiff fine for something like, not sufficiently clearing away dry brush from the antenna site or not having the proper extinguishing equipment on the premises. It seems to me that the CE could have done more than simply dial 911, but who knows.

I don't think they'll get away from this disaster squeaky clean. The station should just be thankful that no loss of life occurred.

I agree with you on all accounts, especially that Crawford should be very thankful no loss of life occurred. If I ran the station, I'd be trying to do something to give back to the people of Catalina Island and ease their sufferring as best as I could.