There is no reason that we can't have a student built on campus Bonfire, that is overseen by professionals to make sure that plans are followed, and safety is a priority.

The University could probably find a way to make it a part of the construction science department and manage it in house. You just can't leave it to students 100% like in the old days.

There have to be professionals involved as consultants, construction managers, and safety managers. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't unite the student body the way that it used to. It might unite it even more, due to the elimination of some of the things that went on during cut, stack, etc.

Murano said that she intends to learn more about Bonfire in the next few months. Do you think it would be a good idea for them to research the Student Bonfire's track record? Maybe even send some people out there to watch and take notes on how everything is done. And how it CAN be built safely and efficiently by the students.

[This message has been edited by ag4ever2010 (edited 10/28/2008 3:51p).]

That could very easily go very sour. Not because its unsafe, but how many people have any idea of whats going on their first time out? And that would actually entail they quit trying to strike down SB at every turn.

Actually, does the end of direct litigation with the university mean that "representatives" can go out? I mean, RA's, athletes, I think the Band, and other "university figureheads" have historically not been allowed by the university to attend any SB functions, so what are the rules after today?

And on a side note ag4ever, SGA will likely be looking for input into whether students have interest in it coming back, and all that filtering so they can report to faculty and admin. That said, if you get a simple majority of the people who attend SB to speak up, then you'll probably have more than the number that voted to raise the whole of the student body's fees for the MSC renovation.

quote:

---

There is no reason that we can't have a student built on campus Bonfire, that is overseen by professionals to make sure that plans are followed, and safety is a priority.

The University could probably find a way to make it a part of the construction science department and manage it in house. You just can't leave it to students 100% like in the old days.

There have to be professionals involved as consultants, construction managers, and safety managers. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't unite the student body the way that it used to. It might unite it even more, due to the elimination of some of the things that went on during cut, stack, etc.

---

That would be an ideal return to campus. But that is not the way it will happen. Any return to campus is almost guaranteed to have minimal, if any, student construction. That would be an disgrace to anyone who has ever worked on,and a insult to the meaning and spirit of,Bonfire.

At one point there was a report that spelled out how Bonfire would be IF it ever returned to campus.
The first thing on the list was NO STUDENT CUT. Trees would be cut and brought to campus by a contractor with NO student envolvement. As a former yellow pot and as someone trained as a faller by the forest service, cutting trees is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. The University wants NO part of it.
The stack would be constructed with very little student work. The report didn't detail what students would be allowed to do, but it was very little.
The community wouldn't get to come out and watch the construction like the old days. It would be a fenced and secured construction sight, just like you see around all the buildings being built on campus.
The choosing of student leaders would be gone. The "leaders" would be elected by the student body just like yell leaders and the SBP. This is something that was not far away when the collapse happened. Can you imagine people like the ones that run for student leadership positions or run fish camp being in charge of Bonfire?
There was much more in the report that pretty much made bonfire an event that students showed up for before the tu game and nothing else.
If people think student bonfire is divisive now, wait until there is a fake fire on campus and see the backlash SB would experience. I don't want to see that happen to SB. There is no one that wants to see Bonfire back on campus more than me. But not like this.

quote:

---

Trees would be cut and brought to campus by a contractor with NO student envolvement.

---

given this "rule" and a student involved stack...

I believe we'd see the birth of Student Bonfire Logging Co.

A local "not for profit" contracting company that clears land and gives trees to Bonfire. The University cannot tell a contractor who to hire, nor limit the students activities off campus.

I'm sorry, but the university could have settled this long ago, but instead dragged it out for 10 years paying their attorneys more than the settled amount of those years. If the university would have just stepped up to the plate and done the honorable thing and provided a reasonable settlement to these families, this would have been over long ago. But no, they had to fight it to the end thinking they could get off w/ a capped 750K for the whole incident! 750K? Are you kidding? I don't care if they was no fault of the university, the families deserved way more than that or even what they are settling for. It's not like we can't afford it. Shameful.

[This message has been edited by Gigem_94 (edited 10/28/2008 6:06p).]

<url>http://www.myfoxaustin.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7741964&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1</url>

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7741964&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

Well according to the email the president sent to us this morning, she has to LEARN about the event first .

thanks for the video

quote:

---

The following is an official university statement concerning settlement of the state court Bonfire lawsuit directly naming Texas A&M University and current and former university employees as parties.



"Texas A&M University has entered into an agreement resolving all remaining plaintiffs' claims against former and current University employees in the State litigation which arose from the collapse of the Bonfire stack on the University's campus in November of 1999. While the University has actively contested the claim that the University employees were legally responsible for the deaths and injuries that occurred as a result of the Bonfire collapse, the University deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries that occurred on its campus. Again, the University extends its condolences and continued sympathies to all of the victims of this tragic event as well as their families and friends.



Pending the completion of the Bonfire Commission review and later the completion of litigation, Texas A&M University has not permitted the Bonfire event to occur on the University campus since the 1999 tragedy. No decision has been made as to whether the Bonfire activity will return to the University campus in the future.



However, on July 26, 2002 former University President Ray M. Bowen, on behalf of the University, entered into an "Agreement of Voluntary Compliance" with the Texas Board of Professional Engineers ensuring that any future Bonfires held on University property would be in compliance with Section 19 of the Texas Engineering Practice Act. If a decision is made in the future to allow a Bonfire activity, in some form, to again occur on University property, the following would occur:



* The University would be guided by the aforementioned "Agreement of Voluntary Compliance."



* The University would look outside the University community for a consulting engineering firm that has no direct ties to the University to determine whether any proposed Bonfire activity involves "engineering."



* If the independent engineering consulting firm were to advise that a future proposed Bonfire activity did involve "engineering", construction of a Bonfire activity would go forward on University property only if the engineering plans and specifications and estimates were prepared by, and the engineering construction was executed under the direct supervision of, a licensed professional engineer that has no direct ties to the University.



The University regrets that the student activity known as "Bonfire" grew into a massive project without adequate design and construction supervision by an engineering professional and pledges to do all that it can to prevent any future loss of life associated with a student activity."

---

I figured that i would post this. It was linked in the email from murano. Does anyone still think that students will be able to build this Bonfire?

If an on-campus bonfire is built by professional construction crews with zero student involvement, off-campus bonfire will live up to their 'renegade' moniker.

I happen to like "rebel" a bit more

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but the university could have settled this long ago, but instead dragged it out for 10 years paying their attorneys more than the settled amount of those years. If the university would have just stepped up to the plate and done the honorable thing and provided a reasonable settlement to these families, this would have been over long ago. But no, they had to fight it to the end thinking they could get off w/ a capped 750K for the whole incident! 750K? Are you kidding? I don't care if they was no fault of the university, the families deserved way more than that or even what they are settling for. It's not like we can't afford it. Shameful.

---

Spoken like a brain-washed trail lawyer. Maybe if the parties still involved would have settled when the other settled years ago the fire would be back on campus by now. Did you forget that the insurance companies representing the redpots/centerpole pots already settled and that attorneys/parties got paid?

Your premise about settling years ago is BS and you know it. Even if TAMU offered to settle for $2.1mil, you and your trail-lawyer buddies would have been crying that the university has billions in the endowment and that they only "care enough" to give the parties involved a couple million.

It was a BS money grab...and nothing more. I am glad to see the number was not higher than it was.

I can only hope that HBZ's attorneys mop the floor with the ambulance chasers and not a $ more changes hands over the tragedy.

And in case you wonder...I was on 4th stack the night it fell.

CT '00

Crafty is on target.

after listening to what everyone has said and looking into this for myself i have come to the realization that if we as students will not be allowed to build bonfire if it returns to campus then i fully support off campus bonfire to keep the tradition and spirit alive.

I still don't see why everyone holds college students to such a lower standard than everyone else. I'm working on a $38 million dollar project that is infinitely more complicated than Bonfire, and we have 18 yr olds out here working that barely graduated high school. The difference is supervision. Yeah, they could hire a construction company to manage the project, but why couldn't college kids be the laborers? It would be an upgrade from what is in the actual labor force.

A&M could be said to have more stringent "hiring standards" than jobs out in the market. that said, frats don't do much to improve the college student image

Nice post Chip. Sums up my feelings trial lawyers pretty well. Hope all is well with you and your fam.

-BB 99

Crafty, I want to thank you for speech at the dedication of the memorial. The last two times in my life that I've cried was after the collapse and during your extremely moving speech. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by YellowPot_97 (edited 10/29/2008 1:06p).]

WHERE THERE IS AN AGGIE THERE IS A WAY

quote:

---

For some, the only experience with the tradition is the off-campus Student Bonfire....And when they talk of the subject, they speak only of bonfire. Not Aggie Bonfire versus Student Bonfire or on-campus versus off-campus.

---

http://www.theeagle.com/local/Bonfire-issue-may-get-reignited

[This message has been edited by Fitch 10 (edited 11/9/2008 7:57p).]

For some reason, I found this statement funny.

quote:

---

Bowen said, suggesting that students instead get involved in projects such as Big Event and Habitat for Humanity that would benefit people on a larger scale. "I would like to see them devote their energy there. But for some reason, they don't ask me anymore."

---

(emphasis added by poster)

quote:

---

Spoken like a brain-washed trail lawyer. Maybe if the parties still involved would have settled when the other settled years ago the fire would be back on campus by now. Did you forget that the insurance companies representing the redpots/centerpole pots already settled and that attorneys/parties got paid?

Your premise about settling years ago is BS and you know it. Even if TAMU offered to settle for $2.1mil, you and your trail-lawyer buddies would have been crying that the university has billions in the endowment and that they only "care enough" to give the parties involved a couple million.

It was a BS money grab...and nothing more. I am glad to see the number was not higher than it was.

I can only hope that HBZ's attorneys mop the floor with the ambulance chasers and not a $ more changes hands over the tragedy.

And in case you wonder...I was on 4th stack the night it fell.

---

I have several issues with these statements. First of all, it seems clear to me the reason that the parties still involved were not content with the settlement with the reds/centerpole pot's insurance companies is because their grievances implicate individuals other than solely the reds/centerpole pots.

I don't agree, as you suggest, that the parties still involved would have wanted more than any settlement that might have been offered them by the university. I agree with Gigem_94 in that whether or not the university was liable they should have stepped up like Aggies and taken care of other Aggies and their families. Instead, they offered nothing and hid behind the law and their high-priced lawyers and PR representatives until recently the courts ruled that the officials were not protected by sovereign immunity. And then they settle...what a coincidence. Maybe they thought they wouldn't do so well in court.

And you know, when I see how the "Aggies" up top have handled the Bonfire aftermath, I am not surprised to hear this kind of intolerance coming from us down here. Instead of thinking about what the needs of the families of those lost and the injured might be, you reduce the whole thing to nothing more than a "money grab". Really? The parents who have lost their children and the injured students could have and could still be suffering from mental anguish and post-traumatic stress disorders. Not to mention what can be easily seen--the physical effects of the tragedy on many of the injured kids, some of who will probably be needing constant medical attention for the rest of their lives, and you have the short-sightedness to call it a money grab. Well how fortunate they didn't get more money to help them get by. I'm sure the money they've gotten will be enough, after it's been split up with the other litigants and their lawyers have taken half of it all. That's one of the saddest things about this lawsuit, that if A&M would have done what was just and taken those so deeply affected under their wing, there wouldn't even have been any need for lawyers.

I implore you, from one Aggie to another, to have compassion for those who have suffered so greatly from this tragedy. Remember what A&M said: "Memorializing the Fallen. Interceding for the Injured. Uniting the Aggie Spirit. Fightin' Texas Aggie Bonfire 1999. May it remain with us always."


[This message has been edited by Bobunk RAB (edited 12/6/2008 10:21p).]

quote:

---

I figured that i would post this. It was linked in the email from murano. Does anyone still think that students will be able to build this Bonfire?

---

Which part of it are you objecting to?

quote:

---

And you know, when I see how the "Aggies" up top have handled the Bonfire aftermath, I am not surprised to hear this kind of intolerance coming from us down here. Instead of thinking about what the needs of the families of those lost and the injured might be, you reduce the whole thing to nothing more than a "money grab". Really? The parents who have lost their children and the injured students could have and could still be suffering from mental anguish and post-traumatic stress disorders. Not to mention what can be easily seen--the physical effects of the tragedy on many of the injured kids, some of who will probably be needing constant medical attention for the rest of their lives, and you have the short-sightedness to call it a money grab. Well how fortunate they didn't get more money to help them get by. I'm sure the money they've gotten will be enough, after it's been split up with the other litigants and their lawyers have taken half of it all. That's one of the saddest things about this lawsuit, that if A&M would have done what was just and taken those so deeply affected under their wing, there wouldn't even have been any need for lawyers.

---

I would posit that, sometimes, accidents just happen and nobody is truly "at fault." In those cases, I am not sure why people who lost something in an accident deserve anything at all; life is a risk and people who voluntarily accept additional risks accept the rewards/consequences of subject risks.

While there may have been some degree of negligence on the part of the university regarding this particular accident, I would also posit that not all of the remaining litigants deserve monetary compensation. Those with on-going medical expenses may have a case for relief if negligence is assumed, but others who were injured 10 years ago and have had no real further medical complications may have claim to only the cost of the medical expenses incurred at the time of injury...

Personally, I think most Aggies suffered "mental anguish" due to this event, and aside from families of those who died, I tend to look at the "mental anguish" angle as a bit of a "money grab."

---

I agree with Gigem_94 in that whether or not the university was liable they should have stepped up like Aggies and taken care of other Aggies and their families. Instead, they offered nothing and hid behind the law and their high-priced lawyers and PR representatives...

---

If you blame the university for not "stepping up like Aggies" then I suppose you have to blame EVERY Aggie who didn't offer some monetary compensation to the injured/families of those killed?? Perhaps, "nothing was offerred" (aside from compassion, sympathy, etc...) because it was believed that nobody was "at fault" for this accident. Also, there would have been no need to "hide" behind lawyers if no legal action was threatened. I am an Aggie. I did not pay anybody out of my pocket following this tragedy, but I don't feel as though it was my responsibility to pay anybody. I did offer a shoulder to cry on, and did my best to provide emotional support to those I knew who were most deeply affected.

Also, I don't think the settlement was a function of the university's "fear" of how poorly they would do in court; I believe that the anticipated court costs and the timeframe projected for trial roughly amounted to the amount of settlement. Thus, a "wash." However, going to court would have introduced a risk (which the university did not want to accept) of a potentially higher cost.

Disclaimer:
This post reflects my opinions only and is not meant to offend or flame anyone.

[This message has been edited by BTHOB (edited 12/20/2008 11:35p).]

If Bonfire returns to campus it will be a very different. Student Bonfire (www.studentbonfire.com) does a great job every year on the stack. It looks VERY similar to the "wedding cake" design but has every log touching. Everyone knows of Bonfire for having tiers, but with this design, it can be MUCH safer and still have that look that everyone knows of. With Student Bonfire building it, they have control over everything so it's done by students for students. If the University makes a decision, they'll make it with little student involvement, which defeats the whole purpose. Bonfire didn't even start on campus, it started off campus.

Build the Hell Outta Bonfire!

After reading the text from "yellow pot '97" I fully agree with that. A&M will only makes decisions based on money and Student Bonfire makes Bonfire happen every year, regardless of the cost. Everyone I know is very satisfied with the way Student Bonfire has done things for many years. Let Student Bonfire take over Bonfire. Gig'em Yellow Pot '97.

Build the Hell Outta Bonfire!