It has been no secret that the City is badly in need of a communications director. I have been saying this for well over a year now. The city leaders and even the city manager acknowledge this need.
However, given their focus on water, the impending election, and the city’s labor situation, adding a communications director is a thorny issue. After all, how do you justify spending $100,000 to $150,000 on what will be called a PR person when you are asking existing employees to take concessions at the labor table?
On the other hand, when you read the city’s press releases, the most recent being a relatively embarrassing release on the CPUC’s denial of the at-grade crossing for the city of Davis, you realize that there is a problem. The only real question is how much that problem is costing the city.
If Measure I fails, one of the reasons will be that the city did not take the fiscal hit two years ago and seal this problem off. Consistently, whenever an important issue arises, the city is either slow to respond or responds inadequately, and when they finally do respond they have too many cooks in the kitchen, which is causing a very real problem for them right now.
But the purpose of this piece is really more basic than that. Absent a communications director, a simple protocol would avoid many of the problems of the past week and month.
You see, this is not rocket science. Parts of the city hierarchy get it. For example, I cannot call up a patrol officer at the Davis Police Department and start asking them questions as a media person. No one who calls for information gets thrown up to either the Public Information Officer, Chief Landy Black, Assistant Chief Steve Pierce, or Captain Darren Pytel. And if I’m the caller I get admonished to follow the chain of command for getting information from the Police Department. The admonishment always starts with, “David, you know better …”
That is how it is supposed to work.
In most governmental jurisdictions only certain people are authorized to speak to the press – usually either the press person or a high ranking official. The same is true in the private sector.
On an issue as complex as water, the city should have set up a protocol for addressing not only questions from the press, but questions from the public.
For example, all questions about water rates should be referred to a specific staffer, probably either Herb Niederberger or City Manager Pinkerton.
Instead, citizens and media people have emailed technical questions to councilmembers, and the councilmembers have attempted to answer themselves rather than refer the question to specific staff members with the expertise in that area.
So, last Sunday we have Bob Dunning asking a question to councilmembers, “Can you please explain to me how (in 2018) charging $7.80 per ccf in summer and $1.32 in winter meets Prop. 218’s requirement of ‘proportionality?’ “
Bob Dunning knows that there are three lawyers on council, but none of them are Prop 218 lawyers. When the city needs guidance on Prop 218, they go not just to city attorney Harriet Steiner, but to Best, Best and Krieger’s in-house specialist, Kelly Salt.
So then why would an individual councilmember try to answer that question? Councilmembers make policy decisions – that does not mean they experts on every given subject. Nor should they be.
As one might imagine, the proper thing to do would be to refer the question to a specific staff member who would then send the response.
Instead, councilmembers attempt to answer the question in part. In the water dialogue, when they did respond, they got skewered.
For instance, Mr. Dunning writes, “Non-lawyer Brett Lee did take a stab at my question, telling me he was ‘puzzled’ by my numbers. Do the math, councilman, and you will no longer be puzzled.”
Brett Lee fell into Mr. Dunning’s trap.
The council did apparently send his request to Mr. Pinkerton, but Pinkerton wrote back an email that Mr. Dunning called a memo with a response. One of the councilmembers then made the fateful error of simply forwarding the entire email with the response chain.
It was a disaster and Mr. Dunning took full advantage to attempt to show that the city was not only incompetent, but personally insulting to him.
He writes, “City Manager Steve Pinkerton sent a circle-the-wagons memo to all five City Council members and various city staffers involved with the water project, attempting to discredit the Above-Pictured Columnist. Worse yet, he did it on the public dime.”
There is nothing malicious going on here, but this was just done the wrong way. Had the council been given a media protocol, they would have known where to refer requests and the experts themselves could have responded.
Instead, their laundry gets aired in the Sunday column, with Mr. Dunning free to selectively pull incriminating passages. And the city’s response to this column: silence.
This is not the only place for crisis. The Jerry Hallee situation also shows the council is off target and off message.
A citizen, in fact an important citizen who is the President of the Rancho Yolo Community Association, had questions about the rate increases for the residents of Rancho Yolo.
So he asked the council and then forwarded their responses to Bob Dunning.
The result is a string of quotes from Mr. Dunning that makes the city and the councilmembers look incompetent.
He writes, “Councilman Brett Lee was stumped, but at least straightforward … ‘To be honest, I don’t really know why there is a difference,’ Lee told Hallee.”
He adds, “Councilman Lucas Frerichs was even more blunt … ‘This change in rates is quite alarming to me,’ Frerichs noted.”
That leads him to write, “What’s alarming is that none of the council members who voted 5-0 to impose these rates on Rancho Yolo could explain the basis of the increase or why they voted for something they find so alarming in the first place …”
Mr. Dunning continues: “Mayor Joe Krovoza did allow that he ‘will be pleased to take a very hard look at this,’ without explaining why the ‘hard look’ wasn’t done prior to the unanimous vote imposing the rates …”
He writes, “[A]dded the mayor, offering a fig leaf to this cherished and long-standing senior community, ‘We have created a modest low-income program,’ to which Hallee tellingly replied, ‘We are not looking for low-income relief from the new rates. Rather, we want fair rates that do not require ‘low-income’ relief.’ “
Writes Bob Dunning: “To their credit, our council members did, of course, promise the Rancho Yolo folks that they’d refer it to ‘staff” promptly and see if one of our well-paid ‘experts’ could come up with some sort of explanation.”
The Vanguard is in the process of obtaining the full email exchanges, but for the life of me, in the middle of the election, why would Lucas Frerichs, himself a staffer in the Assembly, respond in that way?
What they should have done was immediately refer Mr. Hallee to Steve Pinkerton or Herb Niederberger and save the responses until they could get the full story.
With a proper media protocol, this all could have been avoided.
Instead, they allowed themselves to get set up and goaded into making responses before they had the facts at their side.
I’m sorry, water is a very complex project, and I for one do not expect the councilmembers to be able to delve into technical questions on Prop 218 law or how the rate structure works in a more complex scenario like Rancho Yolo. And I don’t think any of the city’s voters expect that either.
I understand that the councilmembers wanted to help and were concerned about what might be happening at Rancho Yolo, but by responding as they did they turned a complex situation into another PR disaster.
In the meantime, where’s the response from the city or the Yes On Measure I campaign on this? We are ten days before the election, people are voting as we speak – how can you let days go by without an official response?
If Measure I goes down, it is stuff like this that will play a huge part in it. And much of it was avoidable.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The City already has a “Public Relations Manager,” but his job is more to promote Davis, rather than acting as the public face of the City.
I think the criticism is misplaced, David. One of the things that makes Davis special is ready access to our political leaders. My young children are growing up knowing our political leaders by name. That is certainly not the case in every community our size. Yet, you would insert a barrier between the citizens and their elected. The problem is the off-the-rails columnist and other commentators who are clearly distorting responses and positions. Where is the problem in a councilmember taking a call from a concerned citizen, expressing sympathy with the citizen’s plight, saying he or she doesn’t know the answer to a particular question, and concluding with a commitment to having a city staffer follow-up? The expectation of the concerned citizen and the off-the-rails columnist is that the councilmember would know exactly how Rancho Yolo is plumbed and metered, and have a rate calculator in his head is bizarre.
The problem here is not with the political leadership. The problem is with the concerned citizen willing to manipulate his fellow voters by playing on their sympathy, the political activists who put the concerned citizen up to it, and the off-the-rail columnist who is hell-bent on influencing the vote with outright distortions. These people are going to unnecessarily cost the community $100-$150k if your solution to the problem they are creating is implemented. Worse yet, it would cost the community a sustainable water delivery system if they had their way. Fortunately, cooler heads will prevail and these folks won’t have their way. I’m only thankful they have no ability to jeopardize our oxygen supply with their devious schemes.
-Michael Bisch
“I think the criticism is misplaced, David.”
You’re wrong.
This is a campaign.
There is an effort to distort everything from the city.
And this stuff is complex and needs to be carefully explained.
“The problem here is not with the political leadership. The problem is with the concerned citizen willing to manipulate his fellow voters by playing on their sympathy, the political activists who put the concerned citizen up to it, and the off-the-rail columnist who is hell-bent on influencing the vote with outright distortions. “
The problem is both. You can’t stop one of them.
Well, we certainly agree that there is a sustained effort to distort everything from the city. So is the proper response for the community to design itself to appease or enable the manipulators? I think not.
They wanted a vote, we’re having a vote, let the will of the voters prevail.
-Michael Bisch
David and DT
I think that you are both correct. This does not have to be an either or. A concerned citizen or member of the media should of course be able to direct an honest question or concern to a member of our city council.
The city council member then has an option. If this is within their area of expertise, they could feel free to answer the concern directly. If not their answer could be, ” That’s a really good question. I don’t have that information at the moment, I will have ( insert name of appropriate staff or expert ) get back with you. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.” This would then require that they actually do ensure that the question is addressed promptly so as to avoid the charge of “stonewalling”.
Of course, this presupposes that the question from the citizen or journalist is an honest request for information and not merely an attempt to gain material to spring on the unwitting council member or twist for public consumption as was clearly the case here.
“So is the proper response for the community to design itself to appease or enable the manipulators?”
The proper response is to conduct yourself in a responsible and professional manner and direct technical questions to experts who can explain it.
David: Do you really think the distortions will stop if there is a communications coordinator? What makes you think that the same people doing the distortions now won’t just twist the official communication to fit their needs.
The problem is with those doing the distortions, which at times unfortunately includes you, not with the source of the information. What our community needs is an expectation of a higher standard of behavior from all of us, including our writers, politicians and the public.
[quote]Consistently, whenever an important issue arises, the city is either slow to respond or responds inadequately, and when they finally do respond they have too many cooks in the kitchen, which is causing a very real problem for them right now.
But the purpose of this piece is really more basic than that. Absent a communications director, a simple protocol would avoid many of the problems of the past week and month.[/quote]
I have a different perspective about the issue of communication and the role of the city, which does not necessarily contradict your perspective.
How are the citizens of Davis supposed to have any clue as to how these water rates work when we have city council members who I’m sure have studied and dealt in detail with the rates in the course of their duties don’t seem to know either.
This shouldn’t be much of a surprise though, we had at least one council member who seemed to not know that a 20% conservation quotient was built into the rates that were put forward last time.
rusty: this is precisely why councilmembers, who are policy makers, hire experts to advise them. imagine the county board of supervisors listening to the county health official, a doctor, on medical issue. if a citizen had technical questions about the policy, do you expect that the BOS should have to be able to answer those or should they refer them to the doctor who is the county health official? Same thing here.
I think manipulation is taking place. Ask one of our council people a technical or legal question, the skewer them for their answer. The community voted for the current Council, because, in large part, they were normal and accessible and not polished politicos. All this will do it teach our CC to give vague answers ( “that’s interesting, I’m glad you asked me that. I’ll have to get back to you with the answer.”). Something that Mike H. does badly, because he gives false information or makes false accusations and then reverts to political non-answers when people ask for clarification – not how it is supposed to be done. I think that the open accessibility of our representatives will be collateral damage from this divisive campaign. I’m hearing that people are contacting elective officials who have endorsed Measure I to tell them that the “Progressives” no longer support them. I just find it all distasteful. Can’t wait until it is over and I can start going to the Farmers Market and greeting certain people on my daily walks again.
For the record, the City does have a single source (maybe a second) to refer all of their direction of “what to do”… the City Manager…
[quote] 2.03.050 City council to deal with departments through city manager; exception.
Except for purpose of inquiry, neither the city council nor any of its members shall deal with any department of the city under the jurisdiction of the city manager by any means except through the city manager. (Ord. 379 § 1)[/quote]
Sadly, there have been many CC members (past and present) who were either clueless, or didn’t care about this ordinance [read: law].
That being said, all of the competent members of City staff , when getting questions from the public, refer questions to the appropriate staff who fully understand the question, and the answer.
Sometimes there are lapses in that protocol.
How do you prevent the situation where someone is given a detailed answer by staff, but the person just doesn’t want to hear the answer, I.e. Jerry Hallee over rates for Rancho Yolo, Mike Harrington on just about everything, etc. I’ve stopped reading Dunning’s column because the angry man message is getting tiresome and I think that there is a much better way to engage people about problems and concerns and The Enterprise, not being very interactive, doesn’t allow a response or clarification.
Ryan
I share your frustration, but would put it more bluntly.
You can’t stop some people from lying. If that is what they are willing to do to get their way, they will do it regardless of what strategy the city adopts. I have never seen that so clearly as during this campaign and it has been rather disheartening.
[quote]Ask one of our council people a technical or legal question, the skewer them for their answer. [/quote]Kinda’ like the concept of an attorney, with a witness under oath, asking, “yes or no… have you stopped beating your spouse”.
[b]Fundamental role of the City is to facilitate cooperation among its people[/b]
Philosophically, this is a difference in top-down and bottom-up approaches.
In a top-down governance, the City decides what the people needs, create a plan, and ask for approval by the voters. When it happens, there could be a disconnect between what the City thinks the voters want and what the voters need. By then, the City had already spent resources on investigating, planning, and designing. If the plan is not approved, a lot of effort could be wasted. There is also waste in the commotion and miscommunication.
In a bottom-up governance, the City relays information about various concerns from different perspectives, and let the voters decide what to do. The City itself does not [i]think[/i] for the people, it only fact checks and facilitate the people to coordinate their efforts.
To illustrate the difference, let’s take selenium for example.
The City is notified that its water will violate selenium concentration. The City computes the penalty that the City would face, and sends up a notice to the ratepayers how much that penalty would cost them each year. With that notice, the City invites any concerned community members to join a task force.
Here, there are two possible results:
1) No body joins the task force. This means that the community members actually don’t care about the penalty, or that they could actually afford the penalty. The community members might decide to just get their own water or pay for the penalty. In this case, there is no reason for the City to act because there is no demand to act.
2) Somebody joins the task force. Now, there are real stakeholders with concerns that needs to be addressed. The City then facilitates a constructive discussion among the stakeholders. Once the task force reconciled their differences and found a common solution, the City sets the proposal as the default action plan. The City then broadcasts their proposal to call for concerning members for a second time. The process iterates until no one objects the default action plan.
As a result, in a bottom-up governance, there is no “voting” because everyone who could possibly disagree with the action plan were part of the design committee.
[b]Fundamental protocol of representative communication[/b]
When a task force is formed in a bottom-up governance, during the constructive discussion process, key stakeholders will be identified. Key stakeholders are representatives for each unique concern. For example, when 100 people join the task force with the following concern categories:
50 -> Share the same concern with affordability
30 -> Share the same concern with system design
15 -> Share the same concern with legality
5 -> Share the same concern with fairness
Then the minimum size of the task force is 4 people. Each of them will be a representative responsible for relaying the information to the other stakeholders who share the same concern. The purpose of this organization is to ensure that each concern is accounted, and people who share the same concerns are effectively organized to reduce communication loads.
To make use of Parallelism in discussion and decision making, the City could facilitate by organizing concerns members with most opposing view in groups in mini discussions.
This organization is similar to the “Communication Director” that David mentioned, but from the bottom-up perspective.
medwoman, the process that you recommend is the process that transpired concluding with a detailed response from the city. Halle then proceeded to distort what transpired and Dunning took it to another level. These individuals are acting in bad faith and no amount of procedures can fully overcome such efforts. I for one would rather invest community resources in overcoming community needs than appeasing bad-faith actors. I fully concur with Mark West in this.
rust49, you’re misdirecting. These council members know how the rates work. They didn’t know the circumstances of this one particular property. The same would be true if I called them to ask what the rates are for Regency Square. How the heck would they know anything about a particular property?
-Michael Bisch
Michael,
[quote]medwoman, the process that you recommend is the process that transpired concluding with a detailed response from the city. Halle then proceeded to distort what transpired and Dunning took it to another level. These individuals are acting in bad faith and no amount of procedures can fully overcome such efforts. I for one would rather invest community resources in overcoming community needs than appeasing bad-faith actors. I fully concur with Mark West in this.
[/quote]
In theory, I completely agree with you that “bad faith actors” should not be appeased. Unfortunately, I feel that some of our “bad faith actors” are in positions of enough prominence that if they pursue their tactics persistently and rigorously enough, they may create enough doubt and distrust to sway the outcome. This is not acceptable to me and although I would like to think that consideration of the facts and evidence will overcome rumor based fears, I am not sure that this will be the outcome. What I really believe is that none of
our city’s resources should have to go to debunk the lies of those who are willing to deliberately mis inform, however, I am not sure that abandoning a strategy of countering their misinformation at every opportunity would not result in governance by lie and innuendo.
I know this sounds very harsh, and I am sure that there are those of you who genuinely do not believe that the
current surface water project is in the best interests of the city. My comments are in no way directed at you.
They are however directed at those who continue to promulgate the same misinformation once their error has been pointed out to them which has happened multiple times over multiple issues in this campaign. I have spoken to some of this disinformation directly. Matt, Elaine, Don, Mark, Alan , Robb and many others have been stalwarts in attempting to continually correct the misperceptions spread by the “No” campaign and they have my thanks for their diligence and hard work in
countering the false statements and fears promulgated relentlessly by those who claim to be acting in the public interest and who seem to believe that the end justifies the means. I do not agree.
Great Edgar, I’m all for more bottom-up efforts. What’s your purpose in raising this issue at this juncture? Are you suggesting the community should set aside the tremendous effort that has occured to date and start from scratch with a bottom-up approach? Or are you suggesting that we should move forward with the current project, but use the bottom-up approach for all future projects? If you’re suggesting the former, count me out. I’m not a supporter of flushing a great deal of community time, effort and money down the toilet without a reasonable expectation that an alternative process will yield a far superior result.
-Michael Bisch
Edgar Wai said . . .
[i]”I have a different perspective about the issue of communication and the role of the city, which does not necessarily contradict your perspective.”[/i]
What is that perspective Edgar?
Edgar thank you for your explanation. That helps a lot. Here’s a question for you. How do you deal with the “tyranny of the minority” that almost always comes from the bottom-up approach?
You said:
[i]”In a bottom-up governance, the City relays information about various concerns from different perspectives, and let the voters decide what to do. The City itself does not think for the people, it only fact checks and facilitate the people to coordinate their efforts.”[/i]
In reality the bottom-up approach is never truly bottom-up. Bottom would seem to indicate the whole ‘bottom” with all the citizens engaged. The reality is that upwards of 80% of a typical jurisdiction’s citizens have neither the time nor the interest in actively participating in the bottom-up process. Nonetheless, they are very ready to complain when any idea is put forward that they don’t like, regardless of whether that idea has originated from the bottom or the top. Human nature is all about WIFM.
How do you deal with that?
A few points to set up my recommendation:
1.Politics are everywhere. Private corporations dealing with large and complex change investment programs have political risk, and the individuals working on the programs have career risk related to the internal politics of the organization.
2.Complex programs should be recognized as such and they require special handling that is covered by best-practice program management.
3.Communications management is an important sub-process of the program management discipline.
4.Because of politics and the mechanisms by which the public gets information required to vote intelligently, the media is always a critical stakeholder in significant public policy and public infrastructure change.
We don’t need a permanent communications director; we need a skilled and independent program manager and a dedicated program sponsor. The cost of these roles should be included in the total cost of the program. (Note that “program” is a collection of related projects.)
As with any private corporation’s large and complex change investment programs, best practices require that the program manager report to the program sponsor, and that both be chartered with adequate involvement, resources and authorities as early as possible. Key stakeholders should also be included as early as possible.
The program sponsor should be an executive-level manager that will retain long-term ownership of the results of the program. It can also be a committee; but organized like a board where there is a hierarchy and process for decision control. In the case of this waterworks program, the City Council in the obvious program sponsor. The city manager is a key stakeholder. Other city employees are key stakeholders. The residents of the city and the media are not “key” stakeholders, but are “critical” stakeholders. Hence, the media and residents need to be plugged into program communication at the optimum time, not the earliest time.
The program sponsor and program manager roles are the key missing components here. Unlike a communications director, for this complex waterworks system and Measure I, the program manager needs to be a domain expert on the subject, plus also have a background in the discipline of program management. However, the program manager also needs to be solution-neutral until a solution is decided on. I would think Matt Williams to be an excellent choice for a program manager except that he is a main architect of the CBFR system. He is too vested in his brainchild; and as a consequence he would have difficulty being an effective program manager as his credibility for being adequately neutral and objective would suffer.
But, you should get the idea here. The program manager needs to be an effective communicator that is also an expert in the subject-area. The program requires a robust communication plan that anticipates many questions and challenges and pre-documents the correct response. It also needs a protocol for addressing new challenges and questions so that there is consistency across the project organization.
Some in the media hate this approach, because they are looking for discrepancies and conflicts to exploit in their pursuit to be a whistleblower and to sell more sensationalistic stories. To help manage this, the communication plan needs to be balanced in terms of media control and access. There also needs to be a problem and change management sub-process where the message is: “We had not thought of that problem before, so we are going to go analyze it and get back to you.”
The problem with addressing the issues David raises with a communications director is subject-matter expertise. One person cannot know enough to cover all technically complex program communication needs. Projects and programs are temporary, and we would be better off paying a professional for this temporary role as needed.
Frankly
I largely agree with your perspective on this issue. I would like some clarification of one point that I see as a potential major stumbling block.
[quote]Hence, the media and residents need to be plugged into program communication at the optimum time, not the earliest time. [/quote]
How would you define “optimum” time ? It seems to me that there will always be some who, sometimes in all honesty, and sometimes to enhance manipulation, will always see the “earliest time” as synonymous with the
“optimum time” and will refer to anything else as “nefarious activity behind closed doors”.
We have reached the point where every budget decision is part of a zero-sum game with a shrinking pie (to mix some metaphors). So if we want road repairs, we may not get a parking garage. Thus:
[quote]how do you justify spending $100,000 to $150,000 on what will be called a PR person when you are asking existing employees to take concessions at the labor table?[/quote]
… becomes very salient. I’d rather keep a tree crew than have someone whose sole job is public relations.
“The problem with addressing the issues David raises with a communications director is subject-matter expertise. One person cannot know enough to cover all technically complex program communication needs. Projects and programs are temporary, and we would be better off paying a professional for this temporary role as needed.”
This isn’t an insurmountable problem, look at the UC Davis News Service who have communications people assigned by area but then they consult with experts when they need to or arrange a direct meeting.
We are not looking at a problem of poor communication on the part of the City, but rather a problem of poor listening on the part of the community. We have taken Ronald Reagan’s old mantra of ‘trust but verify’ and have twisted and bastardized it into a policy of ‘distrust everything and ignore all evidence to the contrary.’ Instead of assuming that the information we are receiving is presented honestly and is as accurate as possible at the time presented (with errors being unintentional), we have instead decided to view the information with distrust, and assume that errors are due to nefarious intent.
I had been encouraged by the results of the past few election cycles where we had made a concerted movement towards more open, thoughtful, collaborative process to solve our problems. Unfortunately, we have taken a huge step backwards during this discussion of the surface water project, and as a consequence, we are now facing the very real possibility of a community decision not based on logic and facts, but rather false allegations, personal attacks and lies.
We may rightly blame a few specific individuals in our community with fostering and nurturing this toxic environment for their own political purposes (or to maximize ad revenues), and while there may be a cathartic affect from blaming these individuals for their roles, in the end, the fault lies with all of us. We can choose to allow these selfish and self-serving actors to control our opinions and influence our decisions, or we can ignore them and instead continue to move in the direction of honest, open, collaborative problem solving.
In short, we don’t need communications director, we need to stop listening to, and being influenced by, the false reports of bad actors.
We had another wonderful Saturday morning at the Market. Tons of red signs going out. Crowds around our No on I booth.
People ask all the time about the rates, confirming that we managed to tie the clunky rate tin cans to the tail of this JPA dream project of Saylor and his developer friends. Thank you, BWA, for pissing people off.
[i]”…this JPA dream project of Saylor and his developer friends.”
[/i]
I wonder what motivates this obsession of yours with Don Saylor.
Partial list of supporters of Measure I;
[url]http://daviswiki.org/march_2013_election/measure_i#head-8bcb626d6fdd8125bab6a1af5b416a647dfebcea[/url]
Apparent complete list of public officials opposed to Measure I: [url]http://daviswiki.org/march_2013_election/measure_i#head-20a704cb132a13ec26e3acb684973b843aca78a7[/url]
Off topic, mike. Two yes on I votes off in the mail from our household.
Don: Saylor did more to wreck the finances of our city than any other elected official in my 15 or so years of public involvement.
I don’t care whether the City has 20 PR specialists: when you have the kinds of bad decisions that the Saylor and later CC’s have been making, an army of PR experts would fail in creating a good spin that the public would buy.
I think a PR specialist is a waste of money. Hire back a tree trimmer instead.
Mark West – Your analysis is helpful. I have puzzled over what has gone on in this campaign and am a bit of a loss about the best way forward. I agree with you:
[quote]Instead of assuming that the information we are receiving is presented honestly and is as accurate as possible at the time presented (with errors being unintentional), we have instead decided to view the information with distrust, and assume that errors are due to nefarious intent. [/quote]
I have argued that when one (or both) sides of an issue repeatedly claim that the system is not to be trusted what we end up with is a generalized lack of trust. What I have observed in this case is the use of personal attacks and innuendo about motive pervades the discourse of the “No on I” campaign. They have built a strategy on destroying the credibility of anyone who supports Measure I. This is a dangerous game because over time one cannot simply turn trust on or off like a light switch. This tactic has weakened our ability to have open debate. As you rightly note: this is not about “trust but verify” but rather “never trust… ever”.
Where I am stuck is that I simply do not think “we” can ignore the voices of those wed to such tactics. “We” is a large number in Davis and I am not sure how we build a movement to ignore those whose tactics are all about titillation and an appeal to base instincts (like a smarmy reality show) and not at all about substance. I would like to ignore them but I feel that naming the truth about their ignoble actions is the only way to bring to light how harmful they are. We will never be able to hire a communications’ director who will be able to do the hard work of truth telling we need to engage in as a community.
Ryan: glad to know you held your ballots a couple of weeks. Was that due to the excellent material that the No on I Campaign has published?
Don: thanks for publishing the list of Yes on I supporters. Looks like a Who’s Who of the Covell Village Supporters from Fall 2005.
Robb Davis: “[i]Where I am stuck is that I simply do not think “we” can ignore the voices of those wed to such tactics.[/i]”
“[i]I would like to ignore them but I feel that naming the truth about their ignoble actions is the only way to bring to light how harmful they are.[/i]”
Robb: Thank you for your response. I agree that we cannot simply ignore them and hope that they will go away. Like you, I think their actions need to be called out and exposed for what they are. What I am saying instead is that even though we have to engage and respond to their false statements etc., we do not have to allow them to influence our opinions and actions.
Let me give you an example from my own life to illustrate the point. Jeff Boone, whom I first met here on the Vanguard, is someone I value as a good friend, even though we come from near polar extremes on most political topics. In one of those rare instances where I find myself agreeing with something Jeff has written, I find myself thinking of a pig learning how to fly. Even though I rarely agree with him, I still allow Jeff to influence and inform my own opinions due to the high regard I place on his honesty, intelligence and personal integrity. In short, I value his opinion even when (and perhaps especially when) I disagree with it.
Bob Dunning is another person I value as a friend and neighbor. For years I subscribed to the Enterprise for the primary purpose of reading his column. Even when I disagreed with Bob (which too was frequent), I always enjoyed his humor and his honest take on the weirdness that so often is life in Davis. As a consequence, over the years I have allowed Bob’s opinions to influence and inform my own. Unfortunately, in the past two years Bob has, in my opinion, increasingly sacrificed his honesty and integrity in a blind campaign against the surface water project. While I still value his friendship, I have stopped reading his column (and have cancelled my subscription) and no longer place any value on his point of view. Bob has lost all influence on me, not because we disagree, but because on this subject at least, he no longer has any integrity.
We should continue to engage the bad players in the hopes that they will agree to join us in honest, open debate. When they refuse however, we, as a community, should not allow them to influence our decisions. Anyone who sacrifices their own honesty and integrity in a blind attempt to force their will on others should be pushed to the sidelines and left behind. We fail ourselves, and our community, when we allow their bad actions to influence or control our own.
This helps me better understand your point Mark. I agree with your points here. Thanks
Well said, Mark.
-Michael Bisch
I agree with you, Mark.
Rather than hiring a PR person, it would be helpful to identify existing people that would answer specific types of questions or requests to comment on specific topics. The CC could refer people to those people or do it for people. Of course, this wouldn’t resolve the problem of people who just spew hate or don’t really want the questions answered or don’t like the answer they get, but it would allow for clearer information for the community.
Re: ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6143:my-view-the-city-needs-to-get-this-right-very-fast&catid=61:open-government&Itemid=89#comment-177198[/url]) Michael Bisch
On Bottom-Up approach
I mentioned the bottom-up approach because David suggested the need of a communication director. In bottom-up governance, there is something like a communication director, but that role does not come “from the city”, but “from the people”.
I only learned about Measure I last month. I don’t have the technical or geological background to detect errors with the physical aspect of the proposal. I can only see the lack of fairness and accountability of the proposal.
I am not familiar with the political aspects of YES side or the NO side. In my principle, there is no sides. There is only a proposal, and the responsibility to find out all the risk and errors about the proposal so that it cannot inadvertently hurt anyone.
I consider the ballot a distraction from resolving the actual issues. Both sides have legitimate concerns that are not addressed. Instead of resolving them and come up with a solution that addresses all concerns, the community is wasting resources to make a binary decision.
The solution to that is the understanding the bottom-up approach, where people work together to construct a mutually good solution instead of choosing between worse solutions.
If a committe makes a proposal, and there is a legitimate complain about the proposal, the proposal is [b]bad by definition[/b]. There is nothing to defend. Just fix it, and continue.
My guess is that Measure I will pass.
But personally I cannot vote YES yet because I am bound by ethical principles. I cannot sign something when the proposer of the plan is continually demonstrating a lack of integrity in admitting the risks and the standing issues.
At the University, I was trained to sign things only when the work is correct, and if it is not correct, every known problem acknowledged and documents. In professional works, and in civic works the same integrity applies.
In my conversation with Matt, he had demonstrated a gross lack of integrity in admitting any issues with the rates he proposed. It is ethically impossible for me to vote YES even if I want the water plant. Since what I see can only be described as a collective lack of integrity, there is also no rational reason for me to believe that there is nothing else wrong with the physical aspects of the proposal.
Maybe there is, maybe there is not. I simply had not gotten to it. All of these issues will be fixed by adopting a bottom-up approach.
If you question my judgement of integrity, I am willing to disclose my rubric of evaluation. I expect [b]every person[/b] who has ever accused anyone “lack of integrity” would have an evaluation rubric. Otherwise, the person making the accusation is demonstrating a lack of integrity himself.
[b]My Rubric of Integrity[/b]
In the following, I rank the various behaviors in the order of decreasing integrity.
1. Impartial, always strive for a shared goodness, actively seeks others to check their conclusions, always ready to admit fault and make amends
2. Does not actively seek others to check their conclusions, wants to be right and holds onto their ego, but would admit fault and make amends when the fault is pointed out.
3. Does not admit their own faults when the fault is pointed out, but secretly makes amend to not lose face or political powers.
4. Does not admit their own fault, does not make any effort to investigate the claims that they had made a mistake. Knowingly insist that they are correct, change subjects when their fault is pointed out.
5. Does not admit fault and knowing distort the truth and comments made by others. Quote others out of context to make others look bad. Intentionally use strawman arguments to make others look bad.
There is a parallel list when one’s friend made the mistake. When a friend is in an argument with a stranger, a person with integrity would point out the mistake made by the friend. A person who lacks integrity would stay silent when they know that their friend was wrong. When one person lies and none of his friends point it out, the whole group gets downgraded collectively. This is why it is quite easy to tell who has integrity and who does not.
For instance, I can ask anyone who voted YES, or is on the YES side these question:
o What truthful risks do you know about the project?
o And what is your ranking of their importance?
o From whom did you learn about the risk?
Does anyone have the integrity to recite any risk that I mentioned about the project? Who would you expect to be able to recite some risks that I mentioned?
[quote]I only learned about Measure I last month. I don’t have the technical or geological background to detect errors with the physical aspect of the proposal. [/quote]
Then perhaps you should familiarize yourself with them.
[quote]Does anyone have the integrity to recite any risk that I mentioned about the project? Who would you expect to be able to recite some risks that I mentioned?[/quote]
After your spectacular litany of insults to project proponents in your last two posts, why would we bother?
Edgar Wai: “[i]In my conversation with Matt, he had demonstrated a gross lack of integrity[/i]”
In my opinion, this statement on its own is enough to disqualify anything else you have to say. If there is one person in this debate that has demonstrated unwavering integrity it has been Matt. You are simply wrong, no, arrogant and wrong.
Re: Mark West
How do you judge if a piece of information is correct or wrong?
Re: ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6143:my-view-the-city-needs-to-get-this-right-very-fast&catid=61:open-government&Itemid=89#comment-177207[/url]) Matt
On how to deal with non-participation in a bottom-up governance
In bottom-up governance, the [b]desire to change[/b] comes from the people. The governance strategy harnesses that desire and facilitate a constructive process toward progress.
A person who has no interest in a certain aspect of the community would not be forced to participate in a bottom-up governance. In your comment, you mentioned an observation that in our current governance system (top-down), people who would not normally participate in civic decisions would be ready to complain when an idea is put forward that they don’t like.
In bottom-up governance, this is not a problem for the system, but part of how the system works. When a proposal is made, it is [b]expected[/b] that someone will disagree with it. This is a [b]good thing[/b] because the system had found another key stakeholder.
In top-down governance with a pressure to make decision, people see these people with objections as obstacles.
Q: How do you deal with them?
A: You let them participate.
Two months ago there was a discussion about gun control.
This was the result of the discussion.
[ Proposals on Gun Control] ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/2012-12-18-Re_Sandy_Hook.htm[/url])
Re: Don Shor
You did not quote the entire message I made, which was this:
[quote]I only learned about Measure I last month. I don’t have the technical or geological background to detect errors with the physical aspect of the proposal. I can only see the lack of fairness and accountability of the proposal.[/quote]
As you may know, I have only been discussing with Matt about the fairness of the rate structure. I am not opposing the physical aspects of the project.
When you make that quote, you did not protect me from the false accusation that I was opposing the physical aspect while admitting that I lack knowledge to judge. That is a false accusation. Your action qualifies you to Rank 5 on my integrity rubric. Unless you admit that I have nothing against the physical aspect of the project.
Edgar Wai: “How do you judge if a piece of information is correct or wrong?”
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck. All three apply to your comment.
“[i]I am not opposing the physical aspects of the project.[/i]”
We are only voting on the physical aspects of the project. The rates are a separate issue.
[quote]That is a false accusation. Your action qualifies you to Rank 5 on my integrity rubric. Unless you admit that I have nothing against the physical aspect of the project.[/quote]
Spectacular.
[i]What I have observed in this case is the use of personal attacks and innuendo about motive pervades the discourse of [b]just about everything in national politics[/b]. They have built a strategy on destroying the credibility of anyone who [b]disagrees with them[/b]. This is a dangerous game because over time one cannot simply turn trust on or off like a light switch. This tactic has weakened our ability to have open debate. As you rightly note: this is not about “trust but verify” but rather “never trust… ever”.[/i]
Look no further than our beloved President for how that game is played in the major leagues.
What will history say about how him? I think it will say that he mortgaged the trust between us to get his way.
Of course he is just one of many politicians playing this game. But, he is our supreme leader and the junk just keeps rolling down the hill until it reaches the little hamlet of Davis. The NOI group is just parroting similar tactics. And it is hard for me to react too strongly against them when the same is going on in Washington. It is too early for me to judge Sacramento at this point… there is a tiny bit of hope shining there.
Edgar, bottom up, top down, sideways, go ahead and focus on that stuff. Meanwhile, there are those in the community that get things done and there are those squandering our resources, time in particular, in endless discussion, analysis, 2nd guessing, revisiting previously made decisions, and fighting over their piece of the same size pie. It sounds like you’re in the latter camp with your “I cannot vote YES yet because I am bound by ethical principles”. I think Mark has it about right with his “lead, follow, or get out of the way”.
-Michael Bisch
Edgar
“In my conversation with Matt, he had demonstrated a gross lack of integrity in admitting any issues with the rates he proposed.”
Are you referring to your conversation with Matt here on the Vanguard or some other private conversation ?
Because if you are referring to the public conversation here, I cannot imagine how you could possibly have come to the conclusion ( with or without your rubric ) that Matt is demonstrating a lack of integrity in admitting issues with the rates he has proposed. Matt has stated repeatedly that the rate structure he proposes is not perfect and that it has issues, but that it is preferable to the other suggested rate structures.
Since he has stated this publicly many times, perhaps you are overlooking these particular statements. Or perhaps you are dissatisfied with his explanations, or wedded to another interpretation or rate structure. Or perhaps you just have a peculiar rigidity of thought process that only allows you to think in “black and white” such that anyone who does not agree with your interpretation must lack integrity. In any event, I cannot fathom how you could accuse Matt of a lack of integrity.
And Matt, this kind of accusation may not bother you, but it most certainly bothers me.
I am referring to the conversations here on the Vanguard and in emails.
In multiple instances, he had made the claim that Equal Discount would result in overcharging the customer, and I have explained and proven by numbers otherwise. Matt had never admitted his false conclusion.
Edgar
Although I do not like the presumption of lack of integrity of the proponents of Measure I, I will answer the questions you posed. And I will answer the question that you did not pose.
[quote]
o What truthful risks do you know about the project?
o And what is your ranking of their importance?
o From whom did you learn about the risk? [/quote]
Truthful risks:
1) There may be project overruns or other problems that make the project more expensive than anticipated.
2) There may be perceived unfairness in the ultimate rate structure leading to citizen dissatisfaction.
3) There may be disputes or misunderstandings leading to delay or even to litigation since there are two communities and private companies involved in planning and implementation.
I am sure these are not the only risks but only the ones that come readily to mind for me. I hope any unintentional omissions will not be judged by you as a lack of integrity.
As for the ranking, I would place them 1, 3, 2 in order of importance.
I do not understand the significance of your last question. I have read a great deal about this project, attended forums and spoken more than once with advocates from both sides. I would be hard pressed to honestly state
from whom I learned of each risk. Again, I hope you will not see my lack of accurate recall as a lack of integrity.
Finally, I think it would be instructive if I were to include some of the risks that were put forward repetitively by
the opponents that I believe to be false, and known to be false by those who were making the claims.
1) Project sponsored in an underhanded way by developers.
2) Project favored by politicians indebted in some way to said developers.
3) Fraudulent rates put forward.
4) Project not needed for environmental reasons despite multiple posts demonstrating the falseness.
5) Danger of river water due to pollutants
6) Unscrupulous behavior vs incompetent behavior of the Woodland elected officials
I am wondering where making such claims as these would fall on your Integrity Rubric once the opponent has been informed of the error of their position, but keeps making the same claim.
Edgar
And finally, where does calling out one side, the proponents for supposed lack of integrity, but not the opponents for their potential breeches, fall on your Integrity Scale ?
Frankly – Your assessment about national politics is not wrong although to lay the cause at the feet of Obama at this late date is off target. Read Rick Perlstein’s [i]Nixonland[/i] for a more thorough analysis of how long this kind of thing has been going on. Is Obama continuing it? Well, according to Perlstein we ALL live in Nixonland now, so yes, I believe he is. But he is definitely not alone and both Republicans and Democrats seem quite comfortable living in Nixonland.
Beyond that, however, one of the things I have learned from conservatives (not of the “neo-” variety) is that the place to deal with the utter failure of such tactics is NOT on a national level but in the places in which we actually live–in our nearby. We need to work on this here no matter what folks in DC or Sacramento are doing. In fact, I don’t give a damn about the abhorrent tactics folks use in those places. I DO give a damn about my town and because we are dealing with challenges locally–at a small scale–I believe we can make changes. I am a localist.
Re: Medwoman
[quote]And finally, where does calling out one side, the proponents for supposed lack of integrity, but not the opponents for their potential breeches, fall on your Integrity Scale?[/quote]
When information is omitted but not distorted, the ranking is 4. This qualifies the speaker for Rank 4. Qualify does not mean confirm.
When A sees that B is lying, it is reasonable for A to call out for B, but not for C and other people. Therefore, when A does something that leaves out someone, A [i]qualifies[/i] to be biased, but is not yet [i]confirmed[/i] for being unbiased.
In my case, I called out the YES side because I have only been interacting with the YES side (regarding the rates). From my perspective, there is a proposal, and my task is to evaluate the proposal. To evaluate the proposal, I only need to see what the proposal says and what its supporters claim. I do not need to look at what the opponents say. The NO side is simply irrelevant to the task.
[quote]
1) Project sponsored in an underhanded way by developers.
2) Project favored by politicians indebted in some way to said developers.
3) Fraudulent rates put forward.
4) Project not needed for environmental reasons despite multiple posts demonstrating the falseness.
5) Danger of river water due to pollutants
6) Unscrupulous behavior vs incompetent behavior of the Woodland elected officials[/quote]
I am not familiar with any of these issues. I have only been looking at the rates. And I disproved the claim that Proportional Billing is more fair than CBFR. [Ref] ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6140:new-rates-would-be-unfair-to-rancho-yolo&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83&cpage=30#comment-177150[/url])
In general, knowingly insisting false claims is Rank 4. Distorting other’s claims is Rank 5. For the 6 items you pointed out, their ranking depends on the tactic that is used.
Rank 4 tactics:
o Simply ignores the counter arguments as if they were never posted.
o Ignore the existence of opposition
Rank 5 tactics:
o Selectively quote a person
o Using strawman arguments
Edgar, we have been discussing this project for years. By a quick search, I find the first Vanguard discussion that I participated in was January 2007, and I have been actively discussing it with experts for years before that. Like many here, I have read dozens of reports about hydrology, geology, water discharge permits, water contamination, environmental impact reports, and more. I have watched dozens of hours of WAC meetings. When I have a question about the aquifers or something, I look up the answer. I have saved many of the reports and references here: [url]http://davismerchants.org/water/[/url]
There have been lively debates on the Vanguard. In order to have a meaningful discussion, I expect the person I’m discussing it with to do at least some basic homework so that we have a shared frame of reference. It appears that you intentionally decline to inform yourself about the project itself.
The fact is that the rate structure is a relatively trivial part of all this. Measure I is about the project: bringing surface water to Davis. Whether that is necessary, why, how to do it in a manner that achieves the objectives of water quality and sufficient water capacity. Whether the goals can be achieved by the option that has been selected by the city’s leaders, who have been advised by a group of volunteers who spent considerable time reviewing many of the reports I linked above. Whether the alternatives have been fully considered and compared.
For some reason you are focused to a point of near obsession with the rate structure. That is an interesting topic, and it might be worthwhile for an ongoing, ad hoc group of citizen volunteers to continue to refine the rates to try to make them achieve some consensus version of fairness. But for you to suggest that the rate structure is paramount reflects a value system that many of us don’t share. And to baldly state that the rest of us are unethical in some way because of the way we go about our decision-making is flat-out insulting.
You’ve given this a month of thought. We’ve given it years of consideration. We research the questions in detail. Some, like Matt, have donated hundreds of hours in community service on this project. Do your homework, man. There’s a lot to learn before you start denigrating us.
edgar… it’s cool that you’ve developed criteria for ethics and integrity, for you to put the world, as you see it in perspective. I, and I’m sure many others participating in this forum have theirs as well, and don’t be surprised if they are very different from yours. Mine have pretty much worked for me over the last 45+ years.
I will not attempt to say you are wrong in these matters, but I will measure my own behavior, and do not particularly care if I measure up to your “yardsticks”. As far as I am concerned, you may certainly feel free to use yardsticks as you please, but am not particularly interested in you sharing your measurements of others, and certainly not me. Good night.
Re: Don
[quote]But for you to suggest that the rate structure is paramount reflects a value system that many of us don’t share.[/quote]
For me the paramount topic is the necessity, which you had already addressed previously. I thank you and others for the answers regarding the physical aspects of the project. You did your work on the physical aspect. I am doing my work on fairness. I am not trying to stop you or to duplicate your effort. But you are trying to stop me from doing my work.
Do you see that if I am against the project, I have no reason to propose a rate that will [b]FIX[/b] the issues?
On balance not clear if any net benefit might result from having a public spokesperson (I think the likely or possible negative consequences outweigh those positive); I like the way things are now.
No question about my vote going to hiring back a tree-trimmer or two before a public spokesperson!
Edgar
[quote]But you are trying to stop me from doing my work.[/quote]
I would be interested in which statements you have read which led you to the conclusion that anyone is “trying
to stop you from doing my work” by which I am thinking you mean the work that you have assigned yourself with regard to the rates. Within the confines of this conversation, I have not heard anyone trying to silence your voice.
I have heard several pleas for you not to personally denigrate other posters. For I believe the majority of us,
disagreeing with even a very firmly held point of view does not mean that the other person lacks integrity. It probably means that the other person just gives greater credence to a different information set than we do.
Sometimes there is “proof” as in continued claims that there are certain chemicals in certain water despite studies never having found this substance. Sometimes, as in establishing “fairness” what is being argued is not
“fact” but rather “point of view”.
What we are striving for here on the Vanguard is an open forum for discussion in which each person feels comfortable in forwarding their opinion with the assurance that they will be heard. There is no assurance that any poster will be agreed with. One way to make people less comfortable in expressing their opinion is to introduce personal insults into the discussion. For many of us, saying that we “lack integrity” is a personal insult and as such has no place in this forum since it does not promote open communication.
Speaking only for myself, I welcome your voice here. I find your point of view quite distinctive and unique although sometimes a little too “black and white” or rigid from my point of view in a world in which I think issues frequently are much more nuanced than you seem to consider. This for me is part of the fascination of conversation. To see the world through someone else’s eyes and perhaps to gain a perspective that you would not previously have considered. However, this openness to other ideas is less likely to be achieved when the conversation devolves into name calling.
My request once again would be:
Post any and all ideas
Defend your own ideas rigorously
Feel free to oppose the ideas of others
Do not make statements as to the intent of others if they have not previously stated said intent
Do not make derogatory statements about the integrity of others
Do not name call
Now, I will put in my full disclosure. I do not believe that any of us ( myself included) adhere to these
“best practices” all of the time. But I do believe that adhering to them as much as possible will lead to more open, honest communication over all.
Edgar
[quote]To evaluate the proposal, I only need to see what the proposal says and what its supporters claim. I do not need to look at what the opponents say. The NO side is simply irrelevant to the task. [/quote]
I fundamentally disagree with this approach to the evaluation of any proposal. In any issue of controversy involving more than one person, it is important not only to consider the proposal itself, but also to consider all of the pros/cons of the potential proposal. To say that one need only consider the proposal itself, is to say that you yourself have enough expertise, scope and breadth of knowledge and enough objectivity to evaluate the project thoroughly without taking into account the perspectives of all stakeholders. This would seem to me to be in direct opposition to your own “bottom up” model in which all objections need to be heard prior to arriving at a conclusion.
My preferred strategy for evaluation of any proposal is:
1) Hear the proposal
2) Ensure that I am clear on all aspects of what is being proposed to avoid confusion
3) Consider all of the points in favor of the proposal
4) Consider all of the points opposed to the proposal
5) Express my opinion based on the consideration of all expressed pros and cons knowing that this is opinion,
not “fact” but rather a reflection of my values regarding the relative weight of the pros and cons
6) Work towards a mutually agreeable solution maximizing the “greatest good” while being aware that there
may not be complete agreement from all stakeholders precisely because we do not all share the same set
of values.
Re: ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6143:my-view-the-city-needs-to-get-this-right-very-fast&catid=61:open-government&Itemid=89&cpage=30#comment-177283[/url]) medwoman
[quote]I would be interested in which statements you have read which led you to the conclusion that anyone is “trying
to stop you from doing my work” by which I am thinking you mean the work that you have assigned yourself with regard to the rates. Within the confines of this conversation, I have not heard anyone trying to silence your voice.[/quote]
Don: “Do your homework, man. There’s a lot to learn before you start denigrating us.” [Ref] ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6143:my-view-the-city-needs-to-get-this-right-very-fast&catid=61:open-government&Itemid=89&cpage=30#comment-177275[/url])
The topic I was discussing was not about the physical aspects. My complaint was for the rates. My complaint on integrity was about the responses regarding the rates. When Don suggested that I should study the physical aspects first before I may complain about the rates. He is setting up an irrelevant obstacle to the communication.
Michael: “Edgar, bottom up, top down, sideways, go ahead and focus on that stuff. Meanwhile, there are those in the community that get things done and there are those squandering our resources, time in particular, in endless discussion, analysis, 2nd guessing, revisiting previously made decisions, and fighting over their piece of the same size pie. It sounds like you’re in the latter camp with your “I cannot vote YES yet because I am bound by ethical principles”. I think Mark has it about right with his “lead, follow, or get out of the way”. [Ref] ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6143:my-view-the-city-needs-to-get-this-right-very-fast&catid=61:open-government&Itemid=89&cpage=30#comment-177253[/url])
Here I interpret the general meaning is for me to stop talking.
* * *
You are correct that having different point of view does not mean that the other person lacks integrity. But in the situation with rates, many of the accusations made by Matt against Equal Discount were not about differences in point of view of “fairness”. They were purely mathematical.
For example, Matt insists that Equal Discount would result in overbuilding of the plant. That is not a matter of perspective. That is a mathematical statment that can be proven of disproven by looking at the numbers.
The lack of integrity I claim about Matt includes the issues at the level of asserting unfound mathematical conclusions.
You can help settle this issue by verifying the specific claims that Matt made regarding Equal Discount. The math needed to disprove Matt is only K-12 arithmetic.
If you want to help settle this issue, I would like to ask you to help do the math. When you do the math, you will see what kinds of misinformation Matt has been posting. You will also see the lack of sincerity or incompetence in understanding the method.
[quote]However, this openness to other ideas is less likely to be achieved when the conversation devolves into name calling.[/quote]
I find this statement vague. Are you accusing me of name calling? Or are you just saying things?
To show that a person lacks integrity, it is unnecessary to [b]guess[/b] the intention of the speaker. Lack of integrity is shown through their actions.
For example, when I proposed that you may help settle this issue by doing the math yourself and report the result, I am giving you the opportunity to demonstrate that you are at Rank 1 on my integrity rubric.
If you refuse, then depending on your reason of refusal and how you refuse, you could be qualified into different ranks of integrity.
For instance, if you refuse with the reason, “I am not going to follow your math because I believe Matt is right.” Then your integrity is at most at Rank 2.
A person who has integrity behaves differently. They back their words by their actions.
Another example sequence of lack of integrity:
A claims that B’s solution is incorrect.
B asks A to show proof.
A does not show proof, but cites numbers that have no context.
B asks A to identify where the numbers come from
A does not show proof, but cites numbers that have no context.
I don’t know what the NO side has been doing, but this sounds like the same kind of behavior that prompts the YES side to say that the NO side lacks integrity.
[quote]But I do believe that adhering to them as much as possible will lead to more open, honest communication over all.[/quote]
I agree. I claim that I am a victim of false accusation. Would you help me settle the dispute?
Re: ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6143:my-view-the-city-needs-to-get-this-right-very-fast&catid=61:open-government&Itemid=89&cpage=30#comment-177285[/url]) medwoman
[quote][quote]To evaluate the proposal, I only need to see what the proposal says and what its supporters claim. I do not need to look at what the opponents say. The NO side is simply irrelevant to the task. [/quote]
I fundamentally disagree with this approach to the evaluation of any proposal. In any issue of controversy involving more than one person, it is important not only to consider the proposal itself, but also to consider all of the pros/cons of the potential proposal. [/quote]
I agree with your general approach. In the context of my statement, I was referring to the fact that there is no one I know of who is raising a question on the fairness of the rates with a foundation in the principle of fairness.
Because of the existance of fundamental principles, I do not need to read what other people say about the proposal to develop my argument against the rates. If someone disagrees with my analysis, they could directly engage in the same discussion.
[quote]To say that one need only consider the proposal itself, is to say that you yourself have enough expertise, scope and breadth of knowledge and enough objectivity to evaluate the project thoroughly without taking into account the perspectives of all stakeholders.[/quote]
In our context, I was talking about the specifc aspect of rates.
[quote]This would seem to me to be in direct opposition to your own “bottom up” model in which all objections need to be heard prior to arriving at a conclusion.[/quote]
In a bottom-up model, it is entirely possible that different people have different concerns. It has been pointed out by others, and I agree, that the physical aspect of the system, the cost of the system, and how the system will be paid are different types of decisions. When I evaluate whether a rate is fair for a system, I do not need to consider what the total cost of the system is, because the framework of the analysis does not depend on the specific total cost.
Give me the cost $X, and the framework will answer how it should be split among the users.
[quote]My preferred strategy for evaluation of any proposal is:
1) Hear the proposal
2) Ensure that I am clear on all aspects of what is being proposed to avoid confusion
3) Consider all of the points in favor of the proposal
4) Consider all of the points opposed to the proposal
5) Express my opinion based on the consideration of all expressed pros and cons knowing that this is opinion, not “fact” but rather a reflection of my values regarding the relative weight of the pros and cons
6) Work towards a mutually agreeable solution maximizing the “greatest good” while being aware that there may not be complete agreement from all stakeholders precisely because we do not all share the same set of values.[/quote]
My framework of evaluation is different because I don’t think in terms of pros and cons. I think in terms of concerns, and [i]creating[/i] a solution that meets all concerns, so that we don’t need to think in terms of pros and cons. For the proposal, I don’t have time or expertise to address all concerns that others have. But I myself have a concern about the rates. I studied it, and found a way to fix it. I am doing the work to address my own concern so that the the project has less risk.
Edgar
[quote]If you want to help settle this issue, I would like to ask you to help do the math. When you do the math, you will see what kinds of misinformation Matt has been posting. You will also see the lack of sincerity or incompetence in understanding the method. [/quote]
I will respectfully decline to do any math. The reason is quite simple. I hate math. Could I do it if it is true that it requires only basic mathematical skills? Probably. But I hate it. And I do not believe that you are honestly asking me to “help” you do the math since I am sure you are by now from this and previous posts that I do not do any math whatsoever and I am sure that both you and Matt are both aware that you are far more proficient in this area than am I and therefore do not need my “help” at all. So I can only infer that your goal is not to gain my assistance but rather to convince me of something.
Re: medwoman
When I say help, I meant to help me as a witness. You are free to review the level of proficiency I requested. The content I showed at the [url=http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=996&Itemid=192#997[/url] is sufficient to disprove some of the claims Matt made about Equal Discount.
I have claimed repeatedly that Matt’s misunderstanding can be disproved by arithmetic. On that page I am showing the arithmetic that are sufficient disprove some of the false claims Matt made about Equal Discount.
You can help settle this by being a witness, to confirm that Matt’s claims are unfounded, and thus showing that Matt lacks the integrity to admit faults and was persistent in propagating false claims.
I know it sounds biased. But I do not know how else to say it. When I said I need your help to check the math, you accused me of being insincere.
If there is a ball in a box and the dispute between A and B is on whether there is a ball in a box. A already saw it and knows that the ball is in there, but B is telling everyone that it is not there. A needs someone to be a witness to confirm that it is there.
Matt claims that Equal Discount would result in excess building.
I claim that it would not. You know what the dispute is and you choose not to look.
What do you think your own integrity is?
Edgar
[quote]I find this statement vague. Are you accusing me of name calling? Or are you just saying things?
To show that a person lacks integrity, it is unnecessary to guess the intention of the speaker. Lack of integrity is shown through their actions.
[/quote]
I apologize for being vague and will be happy to clarify. I was not accusing you of something that you have not done. You have technically not called anyone by a derogatory name. However, in my opinion, attacking someone’s integrity is very, very close and almost as inappropriate. To me there is a very big difference between pointing out an inappropriate or erroneous action, and disparaging someone’s integrity with the latter
being much closer to “name calling”. I think that it is changing this behavior, not wanting to silence you that is motivating those who have criticized you.
[quote]You know what the dispute is and you choose not to look.
What do you think your own integrity is? [/quote]
I do not share your Rubric of Integrity, however, I am happy to share something from my life and let you judge for yourself. I have worked as a member of our administrative team for over 5 years. We sometimes deal with issues that do involve uncomplicated mathematics. Whenever there are calculations or interpretation of numbers to be done, someone else takes on that role. If there is confusion or dispute about the accuracy or meaning of the numbers, my opinion is never sought. It is not that my team members do not respect me, or my ideas or my ability to contribute, it is that they know this is an area of avoidance for me. It causes me undue anxiety and they are aware that I have other contributions to make to the group. In our group, most of whom I have worked with for the past 20 years, I am often teased about my avoidance of math, but no one has ever accused me of a lack of personal integrity. I have no idea where the existence of a phobia fits into your rubric of integrity. You will simply have to decide that for yourself.
Edgar
[quote]My framework of evaluation is different because I don’t think in terms of pros and cons. I think in terms of concerns, and creating a solution that meets all concerns, so that we don’t need to think in terms of pros and cons. For the proposal, I don’t have time or expertise to address all concerns that others have. But I myself have a concern about the rates. I studied it, and found a way to fix it. I am doing the work to address my own concern so that the the project has less risk.[/quote]
I am so glad that you posted this because it has given me one of life’s “aha” moments. I believe that part of the reason that we see things so very differently is how our careers have shaped how we frame problem solving.
As a doctor, it is critical for me to evaluate not only my concerns, and the patient’s expressed concerns, but also the pros and cons, risks and benefits of any given course of treatment. Even if the patient has not expressed a concern, it is essential that I be aware of all of the implications of my recommendation. To not
consider all aspects could, result in serious harm to my patient. I fully admit that I have a tendency to bring this approach, for better or worse, into all aspects of my life.
I understand.
If the dispute happens again, and you happen to see it, would you request someone to check the math?
For example, if I ask the person who disagree with me to show me the numbers to substantiate their proof, would you help me by mentioning that they need to show the data?
That way, you could help me without doing any math yourself.
Edgar
I would absolutely ask for help with clarification if I saw a problem outside my scope. I have frequently asked posters on this blog to state their evidence. However, I do have a limitation. I think exclusively in words.
I am aware that most people find that numbers, graphs, charts provide clarification for them. For me, only words provide this form of clarity. If you can state the principle that you think applies to your preferred rate structure over Matt’s preferred structure in words, I will be happy to read, analyze to the best of my ability and provide you with my opinion. However, in any such endeavor, if the word “fair” is used, my first question will always be “Fair to whom” ?
Re:
Actually we could talk about it in just English, and some of the disputes have no relation to concept of fairness.
This is Equal Discount:
The cost of a shared capital is distributed among the users so that each user will get the same discount compared to not sharing the capital.
In the context of water rates, Equal Discount applies to determine how the capital cost is split among the users. Given a cost, the calculation computes how much each person should pay for the cost.
Matt claims that Equal Discount would result in a larger system being built.
To make that claim, what information do you think Matt should provide to prove his claim?
Edgar
If Matt is making an assertion, I think it is up to him to provide what ever information he feels will support his claim. Then, if I have further questions or do not find the claim convincing, I would have the opportunity to state my concerns. I do not see it as my role, nor do I have any interest in deciding what information Matt should provide.
Perhaps, if Matt would be interested, he could put his reasoning into English for me. What say you Matt ?
Edgar
One further point that I would make. I realize that the rates are an item of critical interest to you.
However, as you might imagine from comments I have made previously, at least at this point in time, they are not of critical interest to me. I do not know if they ever will be. Up until now, and at least until the voting is complete on Measure I, I will be focused on other issues surrounding this project namely need, environmental impact, ownership vs purchasing rights only, with whom to partner…..and yes, the pros and cons.
My involvement with the conversation on rates was limited to my desire to promote open, civil conversation about the issue, not to delve into the details of the issue. However, I remain open minded on the issue of rates precisely because I have not spent much time contemplating it.