According to the Oxford English Dictionary, bad faith is defined as an “intent to deceive.”

The prosector in the Station nightclub fire case said evidence must show that a fire marshal purposely ignored a problem for grand jurors to charge him. If the deception is a planned avoidance of one’s responsibilities, then the actions are blatantly malicious.

However, when there exist discrepancies between one’s understanding of obligations he must then be released from any allegations of specific intent, but not of the deception. The deception thus becomes one of gross negligence of the duties one might be expected to perform. The bad faith is not an intent to deceive regarding performance, but understanding of responsibilities. Dismissal of a grand jury’s request for expert witnesses was therefore misrespresentation of the people’s right to a comprehensive investigation.

Regarding the specific actions (or lack of) that might lead one to hold a fire marshal as in the Station night club disaster liable for maliciously passing inspection:

• Knowledge of the existence of flammable material lining the walls (the soundproofing).

• Awareness of the accepted capacity relative to architectural limitations of giving patrons ample time and space to exit the facility in the event of fire.

Factors that might convict the fire marshal of acting in bad faith are then simply a lack of knowledge or awareness of the above items. Again, regarding bad faith, it is an intent to deceive the public as far as understanding the responsibilities of a fire marshal. One might argue that if one is unaware of limitations then he is freed from criminal intent. However, ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

MICHAEL J. DONAHUE

Kingston