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

Answers

quite frankly there is no need to send in MIB. Since these locations are all military installations, I would guess that they sent personnel from those locations to the utilities.

These meetings between local EMS and big business/infrastructure/military have been taking place. I'm aware of one in my area. It's not a stretch to think that the .mils did the same thing is it?

-- Anonymous, August 21, 1999

Steve,

Excelent comparison and many good points. What you see in the GAO and Navy (and NERC report as a subset of these) assesments are different interpretations of what should be roughly similar data sets. I don't think anyone knows. And if we were as smart as we thought we wouldn't be staring this issue in the face in the first place. To my thinking the question is, and it is unpredictable, what is the degree of dependence of infrastrucure on date dependent algorithms? At some times the problem appears absolutely trivial, and any bozo who hasn't taken care of it has probabably been fired already. Test your systems for a straightforward and uncommon problem, where there's a problem remedy or replace, simple. At other times I see built in obsolescence in a significant and unkown portion of all infrastructure. How do you take apart and put back together again large interconnected segments of infrastructure, assuming you've found all the problems, it looks imposiible (Humpty Dumpty). In this uncertainty, its hard to blame Koskinen for trying to keep the natives from getting restless. If it blows over, he'll look farsighted indeed. I don't think it'll blow over, there are too many things that are expected to fail and the systems are too complex, this is, however, only a gut feeling. Either way I'm glad there isn't panic at the moment and I have the opportunity to exchange ideas with yourself and others on the forum.

May God Bless you now and Forever,

-- Anonymous, August 21, 1999

Jim,

You refer to the methodology of obtaining the information. I expect any way it is done will come up with the pretty much the same data. If you used sodium pentathol, (truth serum), you might get a few more answers that sound like "I don't know." To answer your question though, no I don't think it would be a stretch at all for military personnel to pay a visit to city officials or to an electric power provider to look them in the eye when they answer. I would be more surprised if that hadn't happened a few times in an effort to get closer to the truth.

Also, my understanding is the "locations" are the cities themselves, not just the military installations or support services associated with those cities.

Something that comes up here is politicians and their staff have an "out" in that they can say they were given misleading information. The military doesn't have that option. If/When TSHTF the situation will land pretty much in the lap of the military. They know it. They would be far better off expecting the worst.

If I had their resources I'd get the ducks in a row, ready for likely fai

-- Anonymous, August 22, 1999

I'm going for more info on this report. Wish me luck. Here's a copy of the email I've sent to the person listed on the report as the one to send questions to.

Joel C. Willemssen Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems

Dear Mr. Willemsen,

I recently reviewed the Reported Y2K Readiness of 21 Largest U.S. Cities, of July 12, 1999. Thank you for providing the public with this valuable information.

Could you please provide me with the raw data used to compile this report?

Specifically I would like to have a copy of the forms used in the interviews. I'd like to know the all of the specific questions asked of city officials.

I would also very much like to know the answers each of them gave to each of those questions.

Another area I'm interested in is the supporting documentation and confirmation of data that was given by these city officials.

I would be happiest to receive this information by email, providing it is available in electronic format. This being quickest and often the easiest method. Otherwise, please send it by U.S. postal service to my address below.

Thank you again for your efforts to keep us all informed on the progress on Y2Kreadiness.

Sincerely,

Steve Kube -- Steve Kube

stevekube

-- Anonymous, August 22, 1999

I need to make a correction to my initial posting on this tread.

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

That was shooting from the hip when I got the idea the data was available if you only looked for it. On closer inspection I see the data, the raw data, is not being made available, (held back, concealed, not revealed, hidden, etc). It can be classified as a cover-up.

I later posted on this thread that I'd requested the raw data from the GAO. Evidently my request has been ignored. (I'll make a phone call to the GAO office this week to try again to get the raw data and will let you know how it goes.)

My gut feeling today is a very large part of the problem still remains in the unknown. Unknown to everyone. And will remain unknown until we've gone through the rollover or whatever else will trigger the problems.

My gut feeling today is the raw data from surveys could be used to compose a frightening scenario, much like the Y2K Pentagon Papers does, or a benign scenario like the GAO report does.

Perhaps there would be some value in a side by side comparison of the two different types of reports with an explanation as to how they were derived.

We need to compare apples to apples, (or spin to spin). My comparing the GAO report with the Pentagon Papers basically served to show how we could use the same or similar data to arrive at widely disparate conclusions. To do this properly we need to use the same raw data on the same locations, key-services, etc. Keep in mind though these reports would be a *distillation* or *interpretation* of "raw data".

The raw data is the questions used in the surveys, and the responses to those questions. Both of these two sets of data, questions and answers, can be misleading. They can err on the side of optimism or pessimism.

A question having the following possible answers is deceptively optimistic;

1. Currently Y2K ready.

2. Ready by September 30.

3. Ready between October 1 and December 31.

In choosing which answer best fits your situation, if you believed you wouldn't be ready before the rollover, say the best estimates pushed your remediation timetable into February 2000 then, of the available possible answers, the one that "best fits your situation" would be the last answer; Ready between October 1 and December 31.

The question and the answer are deceptive, inaccurate, misleading, covering up the truth of the matter, etc.

Also, it is my understanding that because of the nature of this Y2K problem and even with the given differences in definitions between ready and compliant it isn't accurate to ever say you are "Y2K Ready" because of the elusive nature of the bug. You just can't be totally sure. The best position one could possibly be in would be in the state of either so called "compliant" with a back up plan in case of failures, or so called "ready" with a back up plan in case of failures.

Such surveys could give us information about how much work had been done on the various tasks involved in tackling the problem, but I suspect the surveys even skimp on that. Asking a city official "Are you Y2K ready?" leaves a lot of room for error. To my knowledge there's no standard method of assessing "Y2K Ready" to which the individual cities have been held to.

At this juncture, given the error prone data to hand, in my estimation, guessing the outcomes is largely a crap shoot, (but weighted somewhat towards pessimism since failures have been documented).

Better raw data would yield better/more useful statistical results. Our government officials may very well have better raw data. On the other hand they may be shooting craps too. Not giving us the raw data equals cover-up, dis-information, deception, etc. (arguing whether or not our government should make this data available for reasons of national security is a different subject. My personal take is that even the best of raw data could yield wildly varying scenarios and thus would have no impact on national security.)

For my own personal understanding I'm most comfortable with data of the following type; During our Y2K inventory, analysis and remediation we found that; if such and such hadn't been fixed then X would have failed causing such and such result. Or, when we tested, this happened which was unexpected and had these results, or if not fixed ahead of time would have had those effects, and (very importantly),would have taken this long to fix. (Recovery time is THE huge part of contingency planning. How long will I be without electricity?).

As unwieldy as it seems, that is the sort of data that would be truly useful. Even more unwieldy, the data would need to be given for a large number of instances in varying sectors or key services. Those in one location who found no problems in systems that parallel systems in other locations where large numbers of problems were found would be suspect.

The analysis and review of useable raw data could continue ad-infinitum, with near infinite outcome projections. Perfect material for these forums where we discuss and distill these matters.

Asking the survey questions that I've seen is about like asking a kid if he's done with his term paper and if not then when does he think he will be finished. Do we plan our summer vacation or do we plan on junior attending summer school? Of course the stakes with Y2K are much, much higher. Do we plan on a few days without key services or a few weeks?

We can come down on our kids, give them a hard time, ground them, take away the video games, and push them to get their job done. We can demand the kid show us the progress on his work. We could put their feet to the fire and the term paper could get done and still the kid could get a failing grade, but we will have influenced the outcome for the better.

We can also push our politicians and other government people to get the job done, to release the raw data, to do more, etc. And still we could experience failures but we will have influenced the outcome for the better.

For the raw data used to compile the GAO report call Joel C. Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems at (202) 512-6408, or Colleen Phillips, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6326

The purpose is to get a clearer picture of what is c

-- Anonymous, August 29, 1999

The purpose is to get a clearer picture of what is coming at us. Better weather prediction through better data and analysis.

Steve

I hate it when I get cut off like that! I shouldn't have switched over from Netscap

-- Anonymous, August 29, 1999

I spoke with Colleen Philips, Assistant Director at the Civil Agencies Information Systems and asked for the raw data used to compile the July 12 GAO report.

She told me their policy is to not release the raw data. She did say she'd "look into" what the specific policy would be on this particular matter but she was quite busy on other things.

If I get any useful info I'll pass it on.

For now I suggest we all get comfortable with the polarization within/between government agencies.

Meanwhile, some levity;

In the beginning was the Plan.

And then came the Assumptions. And the Assumptions were without form. And the Plan was without substance. And darkness was upon the face of the Workers. And the workers spoke among themselves, saying, "This is a crock of shit, and it stinks."

And the Workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pail of dung, and we can't live with the smell." And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it." And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."

And the Directors spoke among themselves, saying one to another,"It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong." And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."

And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company with very powerful effects."

And the President looked upon the Plan and saw that it was good. And the Plan became Policy.

And that, my friends, is how shit

-- Anonymous, August 31, 1999