Maroon Weekly

By Megan Brown

Although thoughts of the Bonfire never stray far from the minds of Aggies, recently it has been receiving greater state and nationwide attention as a result of the ten year anniversary of its collapse, recent comments made by Texas Governor and A&M alum Rick Perry and moves by higher courts regarding settlements to families of the victims.

Texas Monthly’s November issue features a rendering of what Bonfire could have looked like this year on its cover as well as an article titled “Ten Years Later A&M Remembers the Tradition – and Wrestles with What Comes Next.”

In fact, Texas Monthly is the outlet to which Perry voiced his opinion. “It’s really going to be interesting when Bonfire is reintroduced on the campus again, and it will be. I will not be surprised if it happens by 2011, maybe even 2010. I think Bonfire will be back on campus. The kids will have the experience again.” Perry made this statement to Senior Editor Pam Colloff during her research for the article, and it quickly drew criticism for a variety of reasons.

School officials responded by saying no plans currently exist to re-introduce the tradition on-campus, and many students, faculty and officials acknowledge a host of issues needing to be resolved before it could realistically return, the least of which being a source of insurance. Nevertheless, one cannot help but note that currently all nine members of the Texas A&M System Board of Regents, the system’s ultimate governing authority, are Perry appointees.

This leads to another prominent criticism: that Perry is introducing politics not only into university matters but into a very sensitive issue to boot. It recalls his actions earlier this year, when he came under attacks for allegedly pressuring a Texas Tech regent to step down in September.

In addition to Perry’s comments, recent moves in several lawsuits have also returned attention to that fateful night ten years ago.

One mother carried her appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Nancy Braus sued University officials and others because of the damage to her relationship with her son Dominic who was injured in the collapse. Earlier this year the Supreme Court refused to hear her case; likewise, her previous appeals had also been thrown out by lower courts on the grounds that Texas law does not provide for a parent to sue for the loss of a normal relationship with their child because of a severe injury.

In a separate case related to the Bonfire tragedy, in September the Texas Supreme Court began hearing arguments for Zachry Construction Corp.’s motions to reassess the distribution of responsibility for the collapse. Zachary Construction provided a crane operator for use in one of two cranes used in building the Bonfire structure. The other crane was operated by a student. The construction company would like the school to be listed as a third party in all lawsuits filed against the company related to the event.

The court’s decision will be relevant in all remaining lawsuits related to the event, but because A&M already reached a $2.1 million settlement in November 2008 between the families of several of those killed or injured in the collapse, the court cannot decide the school owes these parties any additional funds. However, the ruling could affect how much money the construction company would be ordered to pay if found culpable in remaining lawsuits.

That these cases are still ongoing, rather than the final rulings, signifies the continuing tragedy of that night. The families and friends of victims continue to mourn their loss, and the school and community continue to work through the healing process.