Towns Plot to Kill Tubestock
Sunday, June 11, 2006
From Staff Reports
The Review has recently learned that the College and several
governments in Vermont and New Hampshire are collaborating to end
Tubestock, an annual tradition in which large numbers of Dartmouth
sophomores raft down the Connecticut River. This controversy has been
recurring over recent years because of its widespread under-age drinking
that accompanied it.
Technically, an event like Tubestock has always been illegal. However,
according to state law, the organizers, and not the participants, are
held accountable. But technically, no one organizes Tubestock. In the
eyes of the law, students spontaneously congregate. The idea is to
introduce a law in the New Hampshire state legislature that would make
participants legally accountable. The College would agree to videotape
the event and assist police in identifying participants. The police
could then subsequently arrest underage drinkers. Another option is to
require a permit. The event could potentially take place if the state
government grants a permit; however, the permit will require that the
event be insured, and Hank James, the College risk manager, believes no
company will insure the event, hence denying the students a permit and
consequently killing Tubestock.
Julia Griffin, town manager of Hanover, New Hampshire wrote the
following document:
Problem Statement—Tubestock is a dangerous event, mixing large numbers
of participants and “rafts” with of age and underage alcohol
consumption. It puts Dartmouth students, Dartmouth itself, the State of
New Hampshire, the Town of Norwich and the Town of Hanover at
substantial risk. Our concern is with protecting the safety of
participants and we do not feel we can do so effectively. As such, we
want to take steps to abolish the event or to so constrain the event
that it is substantially changed, involving no alcohol, no rafts or
floating objects of any kind, and that any party with jurisdiction is
completely absolved of any liability.
Background—Tubestock falls under the jurisdiction of four different
legal entities. The State of New Hampshire has jurisdiction within the
Connecticut River and enforcement is taken by the Marine Patrol. The
Town of Norwich has jurisdiction on the Norwich side; the Town of
Hanover has jurisdiction on the Hanover side. Dartmouth College owns the
property abutting the river at the current location, which also places
them in both the liability chain and enables them to prevent launching
of the event from the Hanover side.
Dartmouth has declined to have any responsibility for the event given
the danger it poses and the illegal alcohol consumption that typically
happens during the event.
The State of New Hampshire requires that an event like Tubestock be
permitted. According to the Marine Patrol, the event has not received a
permit and so, legally, the event sponsors are in violation of state
law. Dartmouth students have specifically avoided obtaining permits
because no single individual or group wants the responsibility for being
the permittee.
Alternative Solutions:
1. State law can be modified during this legislative session to make it
illegal to “participate” in a non-permitted event on a State waterway.
Currently only the responsible event organizers or sponsors can be
arrested for participating in a non-permitted event; the participants
cannot be arrested. Marine Patrol has not been able to arrest any
individuals because Dartmouth students have refused to obtain a permit.
By modifying the law, every participant could be arrested, also
resulting in implantation of academic sanctions by Dartmouth. Under this
scenario, if the event were to proceed, law enforcement authorities
would videotape and photograph the event and then seek Dartmouth’s
assistance in identifying all of the participants, rather than
attempting to prevent entry into the river for the event itself.
Collectively, the three enforcement agencies involved simply do not have
the manpower required to effectively arrest everyone at the scene, nor
do they feel this is a safe approach to policing the event.
2. a. Dartmouth student sponsors will be required to obtain a permit for
the event. The Towns of Hanover and Norwich would require a permit, as
would the State of New Hampshire. The permits will identify the
conditions outlined below.
b. Each entity would require the event sponsor to provide an independent
certificate of insurance, naming the Towns and/or State of New Hampshire
as an additional insured in the amount of $2,000,000. We would suspect
that Dartmouth would do the same to protect the College in the event
they were sued by the family of a Dartmouth students who might be
injured or killed during the event. It is highly unlikely that any
insurance agency will issue a certificate for such an event given the
combination of factors which make the event dangerous.
c. In addition, the Dartmouth students will be required to pay all of
the expense related to the presence of the Marine Patrol, Town of
Norwich and Town of Hanover Police Department personnel. The combination
of overtime for event coverage and the cost of transporting and/or
renting specialized equipment (boats) will likely result in a bill
totaling several thousand dollars.
d. Checkpoints will be set up on both sides of the Connecticut River and
down and up-river of the event. No participants will be allowed to enter
the area without either all participants presenting acceptable ID to
prove they are of-age or submitting to searches to eliminate the
presence of alcohol.
e. All costs of clean-up, including any removal of debris such as
makeshift rafts, will be paid for by the participants, requiring the
up-front deposit of several thousand dollars as security against the
clean-up expenses.
f. In the event an accidental death occurs as a result of the event, all
State Marine Patrol costs associated with the recovery of a body will be
assessed against the event permittee(s).
|
