Blogfinger

By Charles Layton and Paul Goldfinger

Those of you who’ve read Yvette Blackman’s recent story on the investigation of the Surf Avenue fire probably drew some conclusions. One conclusion might be that too many questions remain unanswered about that fire, and that the county prosecutor’s office and the county fire marshal’s office have done an incomplete job of investigating its cause. Another might be that officials in those offices are embarrassed by their shortcomings in this regard, which would explain why they keep stalling and refusing to comment when faced with simple, reasonable questions.

When an assistant county prosecutor tells a reporter, “We don’t disseminate reports,” and when the county fire marshal won’t even return her call, one can only conclude that the officials consider their investigative findings to be none of the public’s business.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen such disregard of the public’s right to vital information. Those same offices behaved similarly following Ocean Grove’s previous massive fire, the one at the Manchester Inn in March of 2010. For months after that event, Blogfinger made multiple inquiries that went unanswered. Finally, one day, we happened to meet a man from the prosecutor’s office on the street, who was in Ocean Grove on another case, and we asked him about the Manchester investigation. He told us the investigation was finished, and that his office had found nothing suspicious. That was all the people of Ocean Grove ever heard about what caused the Manchester fire. No details. No official written report of any kind.

It turned out, however, that there was something suspicious about the Manchester fire. In September of last year, The Coaster reported that no record existed of a fire inspection at the Manchester in 2009, the year before the fire. The Coaster noted that, by law, such inspections of hotels are required on an annual basis.

The paper also noted that the Manchester had the type of alarm system that automatically places a call to a private alarm company in case of fire. It noted that a private citizen, not the alarm company, had reported the Manchester fire. The implication seemed to be that if the alarm system was not working properly, and if an inspection had been made in 2009, as required, the inspector could have discovered that problem and had it corrected prior to the fire.

If The Coaster’s story was correct, someone may have fouled up very badly, perhaps with tragic consequences.

You’d think this issue would scream to high heaven for further investigation by the fire marshal’s office and county prosecutors. But officials in those offices refused to comment to The Coaster on the lack of a fire inspection record. In the year that has passed since then, they still have said nothing on the subject. We remain in the dark.

It is obvious from recent comments on this website that many people in Ocean Grove have little confidence in the fire investigations conducted by these county offices. So long as public officials keep the facts to themselves, behaving as if they have something to hide, people will naturally be suspicious and distrustful. As they should be.

If the reason for the seeming laxity of these two investigations is that our fire investigators lack sufficient knowledge of fire chemistry and fire dynamics, then the county should upgrade its standards and give its people more professional training. In the meantime, though, either the county or Neptune Township would do well to engage a skilled team of outside, unbiased professionals to conduct independent, thorough investigations of both those major fires. It’s clear that our own officials lack the will — and perhaps also the ability — to do a credible job. But the public needs answers.

To reread Yvette Blackman’s report on the Surf Avenue fire investigation, go here.