I donated several years ago to a community theater a very similar package of those lighting instruments that we pulled out of a theater being renovated. Main reason for getting rid of them was the time it would've taken to rewire/relamp/repair the instruments wouldn't have paid off for us given the several pallets of
Source Four's that arrived in the weeks to follow. The community theater repaired the ones they could, cannibalizing a handful along the way for parts. They still use those lights for many of their shows to this day. The lamps cost more than
HPL's, suck up more
power, and give off more heat, but they're workhorses that, if maintained, will last for years to come. Likely they'll outlast the production of lamps to put in them.
As for the taped over dimmers, there are a number of reasons for a
dimmer to seemingly "fail". That is, the
circuit breaker could trip, a
raceway's
receptacle could have loose electrical terminations, the receptacles could have suffered enough wear and tear to no longer mate adequately the connection between a
connector's contacts and the electrical contacts of the
receptacle. There's also that the
dimmer module could've indeed failed, which in some cases is easier to repair than in others. My
point in this is to say that there are a number of different reasons it could seem that those dimmers have failed -- if you have not thoroughly troubleshot them and do not know someone who has and to what extent, then it's possible they are still operational given the proper love and attention. They may be old, but that seems like a suspiciously high number of
dimmer mechanisms to have failed.
I've briefly glanced over your letter. Be really careful and judicious of your use of the word "needs". As my high school lit teacher used to say, "You don't need to do my homework. You don't need to come to my classes. You don't need to take my tests. You don't even need to pay your taxes. All you ever
need to do in life is
die."
"Needs" and "Should" conveys an inappropriate sense of an asserted demand that, if not addressed, will be followed by consequences. As someone who has done similar things to this in his younger years, I'm quite positive your wording isn't intended to be offensive, but you may find a more humble, friendly approach to be far more productive. Just in general when you're working with people, a calmer approach using "would" and "might" and "a potential solution to this would be..." can go a long way.
Also try to catch your bearings on context. "At least one of the extension cords has a damaged
plug." If you're going to make a stink about it, know how many cables need repair or retirement. Generally a single cable with a bad end isn't the kind of thing you put in front of the eyes of a building or district manager. That's the kind of thing you put in front of a maintenance electrician and politely ask, "Hey -- we've got this and a couple more cables that have fallen out of repair. Would you be able to repair them for us?" You'd be surprised how rarely you'd hear "No" in response to a question like that, and in a lot of cases if someone did say "No", they'd probably follow it up with an alternative solution.
Most importantly though -- understand the gravity of some of the items on your list. When you dilute your list of legitimate concerns with minor nuisances, you lose credibility and someone reading your document will unconsciously think, "Well, if everything or even most things on this list are as dire as a bad extension
cord, what I am spending my time reading this for?"
Some document design advice...
You're the only person who will ever care as much about your list as you do. Make it quick to pick apart the satiable elements of it as is possible for the people who are finding in this in their email inboxes with 200 other emails they'll get that day. That means everything short and concise -- not many complete sentences -- and problems followed immediately by "potential" or "proposed" solutions, preferably formatted with problems in bold, solutions not bolded, and solutions in bullet
point form.
An example of how I'd revise one of your comments:
According to
OSHA regulations and
NFPA codes there is to be an area at least 3 feet
long by 2.5 feet wide clearance (or the width of the panel) in front of the electrical panel.
This
safety area is suggested to be marked on the floor (by tape or paint) to discourage
setting objects in front of the panel.
Often we find objects (boxes, clothing, bags, chairs,
etc.) in the area directly in front of
the electrical panels and electrical distribution panel (see attached photo #4). To make it
known not to set items in the 36” by 30” area I suggest marking the area with a bright
colored tape as well as putting a sign on the front
cover of the box. This procedure also
should be put into affect with the
power distribution box located in the tower.
The above comment of yours would turn into the below comment (though honestly, if you have a maintenance electrician and contact them directly, they'll probably get the wheels moving real quick like on getting that closet cleared out).
Problem:
Electrical panels often obstructed by props, costumes, and miscellaneous items. This obstructs access to electrical panels and dimmer rack without climbing over objects or emptying the room, in addition to being a potential fire hazard.
Comments & Proposed Solution:
+
NFPA calls for a 3' x 2.5' clearance area around electrical panels. A space of this size could be marked in stripes on floor and with sticker on electrical panel.
+ Items in electrical closet in need of place to be stored and organized. Are these items the theater department intends to keep or has not yet decided to
throw away. If they want to keep, is there an existing location these items should be located instead of this closet or can space somewhere in the school be allocated for these?
A second example:
Although no specific code exists for the overhead lighting hoists, it is ideal that they be
inspected at least once every five years. In this inspection the cables, hoists and pulleys
should be inspected by a properly certified agency.
For the
safety of the students and faculty I would suggest an inspection of the overhead
rigging to be a top priority as an accident could be cause major damage to our
equipment and could inflict injury or death to people on
stage.
The above comment of yours would turn into the below comment:
Problem:
No record could be found of last inspection of overhead rigging in theater.
Comments & Proposed Solution:
+ Has the rigging been inspected recently and records kept elsewhere or record were not made of inspection?
+ For maintenance and insurance purposes, it would be a good idea for inspections to be recorded somewhere and that they be performed routinely if not already. Standard industry practice is generally an inspection of overhead rigging by a qualified professional every 1-2 years. Long-term care of rigging systems ensure a safe, functioning facility for students and can extend life of rigging systems before a major overhaul is necessary. Regular intervals of maintenance now can prevent or put off need for major, expensive projects in coming years.
A third example
For the most part we have no Personal Protective Equipment (
PPE) in place. Title 29 in
the Code of Federal Regulations says “Employers must ensure that each affected
employee uses appropriate eye or
face protection when exposed to eye or
face hazards
from flying particles”. This code would suggest that while performing certain activities
eye protection needs to be provided for students.
Hand protection is a necessary piece of
PPE to avoid burns, splinters and cuts from sharp edged or loose
wire. All
PPE should
be stored in a easily accessed place with proper singe reminding to use it posted where
visible.
PPE needs to be purchased and put into use. Students should be required to wear eye
protection while using a saw, hammer, staple gun, or crowbar. Proper eye protection
should also be used when painting in case of splatter and when the potential for
exploding lamps exist (particularly Xenon
projector / spotlight lamps). Students should
be required to wear gloves when moving wood, platforms, flats, and light fixtures.
Proper warning signs need to be installed to remind students of the use of
PPE.
The above comment of yours would turn into the below comment:
Problem: Currently available PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) such as gloves and safety glasses is inadequate for building sets and is being under-utilized by students.
Comments & Proposed Solution:
+ Sufficient
PPE and
safety equipment for most scenarios would likely include the following:
+ (x12) Pairs of
safety glasses for eye protection
+ (x6) Pairs of leather gloves for working with ropes, splintery lumber,
etc.
+ (x1) Full
face shield for eye protection
+ (x4) Pairs of earmuffs for hearing protection
+ Recommended that students wear appropriate hearing, eye, and
hand protection when working with tools or near potential hazards on
stage or in shop.
+ Recommended that policy be adopted to restrict wearing sandals, open-toed shoes, or similar footwear in shop areas to reduce change of stubbing toes, dropping heavy things on exposed feet, or stepping on staples, nails, and splinters that may be on floor during construction process.
Make it really easy for someone to look at your proposed solutions and decide, "We have no reason not to take care of this right now" or "We need to look at this closer before we decide on a course of action." Your document should be easily digestible and give the person reading it a sense that every sentence or phrase on each
page has enough value that it's worth their time to read every
page through to the end.
Another note for you is that I've noticed your problems and solutions to be reversed. You tend to describe the problem better down where you're supposedly listing the potential fixes, and tend to describe the potential fixes better up where you're supposedly listing the causes. That the problems and their respective solutions are divorced apart from one another in your document is especially discombobulating.
Lastly, be very cautious making assumptions. Just because you don't know if something has been inspected doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't. If you make
broad assumptions about things that other people have already addressed and then claim they have ignored those things -- you lose a lot of credibility really fast and those people who you've offended may get defensive or feel compelled to put you into your place and tell you how mistaken you were about how poorly they've been handling their jobs. (You didn't outright accuse them of being bad at their jobs, but that's the implication as you're telling them what they should be doing better on things that fall within their job description.
