at Internet
Date: 11/10/99 3:42 PM
Dear Mr. Koskinen,
I appreciate your quick response to my email of November 5th. And I thank Steve Davis for forwarding both of them. Please excuse my delayed response (I am actually in the throes of organizing a Community Conversation for next week-- it will focus on the essential utilities in our region).
I would like to respond to a couple of your comments.
1) Mixed-message factor
You state: "Those reports, contrary to stated views of some, have never stated that there were no risks or problems to be addressed."
I don't believe that anyone will argue this point. But Americans are not hearing it. They are not hearing the disruptions part because of mixed messages. The question here is which message has higher priority for the government: a) to reassure the public that (just about) everything is going to be fine; or b) to make sure everyone is prepared for possible disruptions?
To make your message clear, I believe the government needs to focus on either one or the other, but not both. Americans, like most humans, will choose to hear the rosy part and ignore the darker part-- unless they are given an unequivocal message. If your intent is to have a prepared population, this intent will fail unless it is made a clear priority. For this to happen, we are running out of time. (Even the Checklist requires 4-6 weeks for delivery. If I ordered today, I would get it around Christmas.).
My question is: if you believe Americans should be prepared for possible disruptions, how will you make sure this message is received and acted upon?
(The message is not delivered until all Americans have received it.)
2) Time factor of preparedness
You are asking the American public to prepare for a long holiday weekend which is what they are planning to do anyway. I assume that that is the length of time you expect possible disruptions to last.
My question is: how have you come to this conclusion? For instance, what if the problem is in faulty inaccessible chips embedded in equipment? Or the need to replace software that is unavailable? Or that there are disruptions to the supply chains (such as oil, essential spare parts etc)? Or other complicating factors which could exacerbate disruptions, such as solar flares or cyber-terrorists? What about the impact of chemical spills or sewage backups?
I assume from this timeframe that you are seeing possible disruptions as 1) short term events; 2) localized, 3) isolated (not interconnected), and 4) readily fixed in 3 days. I believe this lens has a dangerously narrow, myopic, and optimistic focus. A long term and broader focus would suggest that Americans need to be prepared for longer than a holiday weekend and that we need to take safety precautions now to help prevent potential disasters later.
3) Uncertainty factor:
You state: "The difference I seem to have with some of those on our conference call is with the fact that I have seen no information -- as opposed to speculation and assertions -- that demonstrates that the basic infrastructure of the United States will not function effectively as we move into the New Year."
Although I am not sure what is meant by "basic infrastructure" and "function effectively", I suspect that most of us will agree that the basic infrastructure will probably "function effectively" as we move into the New Year-- primarily because so much effort has been made to make sure that this initial transition will pass smoothly. For me, at least, that is not the principal issue.
Your statement again illustrates the points I made in my earlier letter about the traditional lens that I believe the government sees through. The statement focuses on: 1) the short term transition ("as we move into the New Year"); 2) "the basic infrastructure" (not the broad spectrum of uncertainties-- all those that will not be ready or will unexpectedly malfunction); and 3) what you consider to be "ready" (vs what will not be ready, either acknowledged or unforeseen). Furthermore, there is an assumption that unless there are "facts" (vs "speculation and assertions") to support predictions of the future, they are to be dismissed.
I believe any prediction is speculation, whatever they are based on. We simply do not, and can not, know what the future will bring, especially in this case. There are too many complex, interrelated factors to consider, and very few certainties. In the face of such uncertainty, I do not know how the government can assure the American public that there is essentially nothing to worry about-- especially if we are considering the period beyond January first.
It seems that what you are saying in effect is: Despite all the nails (read-- computer bugs) that have been strewn across the highways, the experts I am choosing to listen to say that it is unlikely that I will get a flat tire on New Years day because they all will have been swept up by that time. Therefore, I do not plan to carry a spare. And I am right until proven wrong (ie when I get a flat). (And then what?)
I believe we need to be focusing on: 1) the long term (ie cascade) effects of disruptions; 2) the broad (ie global) range of disruptions; and 3) the uncertainty factor-- we simply do not know the magnitude, extent and duration of disruptions. Because of this uncertainty, we cannot predict what will happen in the Year 2000 and we must therefore be prepared for all possible contingencies. This to me is the principal issue.
4) Foreign and economic factor
You state: "However, contrary to Mr. Yardeni, who is a thoughtful and experienced economist,the overwhelming majority of economists do not see a noticeable negative effect on our economy from failures abroad, primarily because the bulk of our trade and travel are with developed countries who are doing very well."
This is a wonderfully optimistic assessment. How do you respond to the following statement?
From the Senate Special Committee 100 Day Report:
"The Committee is greatly concerned about the international Y2K picture. Several important U.S. trading partners are severely behind in addressing the Y2K problem. This leads the Committee to conclude that many short-term, and in some cases long term, disruptions to supply chains are likely to occur. If this proves true, such disruptions may cause a low to moderate downturn in the U.S. economy, particularly in industries that depend on foreign suppliers. However, the technology and business interconnections and interrelationships are difficult to map. This makes it impossible for the Committee or anyone else to predict which industries will be affected, and how much impact these affected industries will have on the economy...
The Committee remains extremely concerned about the impact Y2K will have on the U.S. economy and our strategic interests. Several countries of strategic and economic importance to the U.S. are severely behind in their Y2K remediation efforts... the specific countries of most concern to the Committee are China, Russia, Italy, and several of the countries from which the U.S. imports oil."
Note: Indeed, Mr. Yardeni may not be in the majority. However, unlike most, he has successfully predicted the twists and turns of the economy for many years. Most of the other economists you are preferring to listen to do not have this extraordinary track record. A prediction based on a majority view does not necessarily mean it is correct, especially if the assumptions they are based on are wrong.
5) Long term accountability factor:
"As I have noted on many occasions, we are not managing just to get through December 31. We will all be here during the first quarter of next year and are prepared to be held accountable for our stewardship of the public trust."
I am concerned by your statement that you believe that the impact of Y2K disruptions will be over by the end of March. Is this true? Along with many others, I believe that we are more likely to feel the greater impact of local and global disruptions just beginning by February or March, the time you suggest your stint may be ending. Y2K is not just the transition to January first, as you yourself have stated. It is the impact of cumulative disruptions for weeks, months or even longer.
In summary, I believe that the focus needs to be on three main factors:
a) the uncertainty of the situation (vs selected assurances of readiness), b) the need for preparedness (to prevent panic in face of disruptions)
c) the need for precaution (to protect the health and safety of Americans).
I understand that there will be a final Y2K report coming out later today. I sincerely hope that the issue of preparedness will be the primary focus. Again, I thank you for listening.
With best wishes,
Lysa Leland
Cape Ann Community Preparedness Project Gloucester, MA
Subject: FW: An open response to Mr. Koskinen
Author: Steve Davis at Internet
Date: 11/14/99 1:36 PM
As with many of these messages for John Koskinen, I passed this e-mail along to him for a response. He wants to let everyone know that he is currently inundated with e-mails and other responsibilities of his office and that the is going to have to adopt a rule that everyone gets one answer but he indicates that he can't engage in a longer debate with writers in light of all the other demands on is time.
In response to this letter, Mr. Koskinen said:
"But, in short, I agree that we need to get the public to understand that there will be some Y2K failures, that everyone should be prepared and that they should take precautions earlier rather than later."
I think this is the best we can hope for at this point and that we need to move on to do what we can together as well as each of us in our own way. We have been very fortunate to have his time and attention as much as we have.
Steve
******************************
Linkmeister if you or someone else could link the other two similar posts to this one it would be appreciated. : Awareness/General
ExCop
-- ExCop (yinadral@juno.com), November 15, 1999