I'm not buying into the "cover-up" theory either.

Here's why; Go back to the GAO report of July 12, 1999 (It is a small report on only the 21 largest U.S. cities).

The methodology was; "Interviewed city officials by telephone June 28 - July - 9, 1999" (simple phone calls) and "requested supporting documentation and confirmation of data".

In the Summary of Survey Results (cont'd.) we read; "6 cities said they have completed independent verification"

Now consider the above; The city officials are asked on the phone how the y2k work is going, then they "request" supporting documentation and confirmation.

For the 6 cities that have completed independent verification the requested documentation would be easy to produce. For the remaining 15 what are they going to offer in the way of documentation besides speculation?

Also consider the date of the report and the dates of the telephone interviews; From the last day of the interviews to the date of the report there were only three days! Hardly enough time to get the requested documentation through the mail! Of course the city officials could have used a fax machine but my experience with city officials would indicate it would take many days for them to even find the right file cabinet where the documentation was.

The sense I get of this portion of what the report tells me is this was done in a fast and loose manner. (To be fair I must admit that digging into Y2K issues can be something of a bottomless pit and continuing to dig past a certain point reveals only more confusion. A fast and loose snapshot of the situation isn't worthless.)

Now let's consider the military trying to get at the same information. Assume a similar methodology. (What else are they going to do? Send in the Men in Black?) Also, there were more cities questioned in the military report and not just big cities.

Imagine a phone call from a staff member of the Honorable Robert F. Bennett, and the Honorable Christopher Dodd. My sense is it would be rather pleasant and eventually wind it's way to the point of the call.

Imagine a phone call from a staff member of General Mucketymuck. Much more discipline, much more direct and to the point.

The callers from both staffs fill out a form as the questions get answered. (This is a telephone survey. This is how they work.)

The answers are yes/no or multiple choice.

For example a question might be; "Regarding your sewer system; which of the answers best describes your situation?"

Currently Y2K ready?

Fully Y2K ready by September 30,1999?

Fully Y2K Ready between October 1, 1999 and December 31, 1999?

The person taking the survey simply puts a check mark next to the answer indicated by the city official.

There are other answers to other questions like; Fully Ready, Not Ready, Not Applicable. But note that nowhere is the answer; ain't gonna make it an option!

Another set of answers to the GAO survey was;

Fully Ready by the end of: (give a month here),

Independent Verification is Completed, Ongoing, or Planned?

Has Completed Contingency Plans? (yes/no)

Testing of Contingency Plans is Completed, Ongoing, Planned, or Not Planned?

And so the telephone survey goes. No amiable chatting over a cup of coffee. Get the data and get on to the next one. Before you hang up ask the city official to send "supporting documentation and confirmation of data", (which probably doesn't come until after the GAO report is released but the affect of asking for it adds seriousness to the survey).

For the GAO report the "spin" is exactly what you see in the report. Toned down, somewhat reassuring.

Now for a corresponding military report we get quite serious and pointed about the information. Any estimated dates of completion that approached December 31 are simply grouped in the "likely to fail" category.

If you get a bunch of late completion dates for various y2k projects within a particular city, then you just get real and say total failure is likely.

You might question if that viewpoint is valid. I'd say absolutely it is valid. In my book Ready by December 31 is tantamount to ain't gonna make it.

The GAO Summary of Survey Results, on page 6 of the report says; "10 cities plan to be fully Year 2000 ready between October 1 and December 31" (note it says ready and not compliant).

Go to page 10 of the report and read the survey question and the possible answers;

"Cities Estimates for Completing Y2K Efforts on Key City Services":

Currently Y2K Ready?

Fully Y2K ready by September 30,1999?

Fully Y2K ready between October 1, 1999 and December 31, 1999?

There are only three possible answers here. You are either ready now, you've got a pretty good handle on it and hope to be ready by the end of September, or you're lost in the weeds and you ain't gonna make it.

Now go to page 11 of the GAO report. We have eight Key City Services listed and the status of their Y2K efforts. The trouble with the information here is the answers are in a Yes/No/Not Applicable format. Y=Fully Ready, N=Not Ready, N/A= Not Applicable.

Take Detroit as a poor example; Of eight key city services six of them are Not Ready! (total failure?)

Los Angeles has four of the eight key services in the Not Ready category! (probable total failure?)

Baltimore has seven of the eight in the Not Ready category! (yipes!)

Okay, I have to stop here and point out that these answers are as of the date of the survey. It would be much, much better to have the "expected dates of completion" listed to get a feel for if they have a pretty good handle on it or if they are they lost in the weeds.

I expect the military report has that missing information. The Senators Bennet and Dodd may have it too but they didn't share it with us.

There's a couple of points here; One is the GAO report, if considered carefully, can be seen to reveal much the same sort of information as the Y2K Pentagon Papers. The GAO report isn't as clear or as pointed as the Pentagon Papers.

The GAO report tries to paint a more hopeful picture and seems to try to convey the notion our leaders are following the Y2K issues closely and won't let us down. Also, there's a sense of validity to the idea the cities will actually meet the deadlines they put out for themselves. (ha-ha-ha, and a hearty harrumph!)

The military report does not "glow" with confidence. It does not lend credence to the promises of unaccountable city officials.

Expect the next GAO report to coincide more closely with the "Pentagon Papers", and other military reports. Time is closing in on us here. The "authorities" and city officials can spin a rosy picture for only so long. As more dates get pushed into the dead zone of October 1 - December 31 the "hard facts of probable failure" will get more and more clear.

We can also predict future military reports will shift towards a harmony with future GAO reports. After all, a lot of work is being done on this Y2K thingy, progress is being made. How much is the question.

Neither of these reports contradicts the other. Both arrive at valid viewpoints. The GAO is trusting and allowing estimated completion dates of December 31. The military report simply says "failure likely". The military report also represents a broader mix of representative cities.

The GAO report lulls us with the idea it's all under control and will be taken care of in time. The Y2K Pentagon Papers, using parallel data is shocking. It grabs our attention. Partial failure likely! Total failure probable! Oh My God!

Go back and read the July 12, 1999 GAO report again. If you take the sugar frosting off of it you'll come up with the same conclusions.

Given the data at hand, and barring miracles, the very best outcome we can expect right now is "partial failure" is likely in MANY cities in the U.S..

Some, or several, Key services, including Electric Power, Water/Wastewater Treatment, Telecommunications, Emergency Services, Hospitals/Healthcare Facilities, Transportation, Public Buildings, and City Government Services will fail!

I repeat; One or more WILL FAIL! (water it down if you must and say likely, or probable but that's just sitting on the fence).

Given the data at hand this will happen in MANY cities in the U.S. (according to the GAO report as well as the military report).

We do not know how long it will take to fix or work around them. (Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? We simply do not know.)

Given the data at hand the worst outcome will be where MOST of these services fail in a given city. You may as well call that total failure. At present this is likely or probable in many cities in the U.S. TOTAL FAILURE!

Undoubtedly it will take longer to fix oar work around those.

Watch for the next GAO report. Look for completion dates moving into or out of December.

Use your level of trust in city officials and others to answer honestly, and then prepare accordingly.

Personally I'll go with the military reporting method and s

-- Anonymous, August 21, 1999