http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/NATION/t000084086.html

[entire text of this extensive coverage]

Sunday, September 19, 1999

Cabinet Meets to Discuss Y2K Glitches

WASHINGTON--President Clinton's Cabinet met Saturday with the administration's top expert on the Year 2000 technology problem to discuss how government agencies will respond to possible Y2K-related computer failures. It was the first time the Cabinet had assembled for the sole purpose of discussing the Y2K glitch. The government has expressed increasing confidence that there will be no nationwide failures of the most important computer systems. But it has acknowledged the likelihood of localized failures in parts of the United States; even more severe problems are anticipated overseas. "The sense in the room was that certainly there is work left to do, but government has made some real strides in the past year," said John Koskinen, Clinton's top Y2K advisor. Koskinen said the Cabinet reviewed how individual agencies respond to emergencies and the implications for other areas of government. Koskinen is organizing a government-wide coordination center near the White House to share with other agencies information about any Y2K failures during the New Year's weekend.

*****************************

Well... the Government has made some real strides. What more can I say? [I be making some real strides on down to Costco latter dis morning]

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), September 19, 1999

Answers

Somewhere---someplace last year I ran accross the definition of "local" when used by the feds,as meaning state-wide in some area of the US. Sure looks differant when you are thinking of a small berg when hearing "local". So Floyd is a local(NC) problem in the US? Is that the way it is conceived? Anybody here know anything about this usage of "local"

-- John Q (defineyourterms@sneakybuggers.com), September 19, 1999.

Yeah, when clinton says local he means from LA to NYC...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 19, 1999.

Y2K = Widespread local disruptions

BITR

3 days, back to normal

-- MarktheFart (quke@ix.netcom.com), September 19, 1999.

Local = "Somewhere out there above our bunkers."

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 19, 1999.

Each and every person lives "locally". Therefore, "LOCAL" must mean EVERYWHERE!!

-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), September 19, 1999.

Unless you're on MIR -- oops, not anymore ;^)

Polish Your PitchForks, GIs !!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 19, 1999.

See also thread...

Cabinet in first meeting to discuss possible Y2K failures

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001QcA

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 19, 1999.

In my opinion, Clinton knows exactly what he is doing on this matter. He was given good briefings on this whole scenario more than 18 months ago, and he made some decisions. First, he decided to see if there was going to be sufficient progress. Then, he decided he could resort to martial law to mantain control. Lastly, he decided to say nothing publically about it, until it was close to crisis and martial law. That time is now here. The meeting you mention is important from a standpoint of "setting up" the next chapter. This is how it will unfold. From the meetings will come the *bad news* that he will have to pass on to the country in the near future, along with his "final solution." That's what you are witnessing now, I believe.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 19, 1999.

Not to mention Gordo, that Clinton has set an amazing precedent by declaring a Federal Disaster Area BEFORE there was a disaster.

VERY telling. And again.....no one cares about the possible negative repurcussions of such an act, just the goody-feely things of "mobilizing" relief BEFORE the disaster. This makes everyone "feel" as though the Feds are DOING something helpful, when the reality is it has taken the same amount of time for aid and assistance to be dispatched both local and Federal. Curious why Clinton left New Jersey off that "Advance Disaster Declaration".

So much for always being prepared.

What Clinton did by declaring that in advance is suspicious to say the least and has set up a mechanism to do the same before Y2K without scruples.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), September 19, 1999.

I work in a State headquarters office of one of the Cabinet Offices that recently had their first meeting with the President. Friday, I overheard the head person in our local office ask another about the low level of electric power readiness reported for one of the smaller cities in this State which happened to be 11%. He asked the other person to check it out. He was absolutely clueless. The other person will ask some questions, be told that it will be fixed or minor problems in January, this will be reported back to the head man and they will go back to sleep. Absolutely incredible. Now they will probably write a mission statement or amend the stewardship plan to address this problem. The funny part is that the city we are living in is not in much better shape but that part will be ignored. The city noted was listed in the Navy report posted by Jim Lord while the city where we reside has no Navy facilities so was not included. Another example of the wondrous ways of bureauracy.

-- Ed (Ed@amazed.gom), September 19, 1999.

Worthy of note:

...Neither President Clinton nor Vice President Gore were in attendence....

That pretty much says it all, don't you think?

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), September 19, 1999.

If Bubba and Termite Bait had attended the meeting, how could they deny being told the bad news? By not being there they now have "plausable deniability".

I can here it now: "There may have been high-level discussions within the government, but we were not in that loop. Somebody dropped the ball by not informing us. But if we had known how bad it would be, we would've done something to stop it. Honest."

Hear no evil. See no evil. Don't have to speak any evil. Nor take any blame, if they can help it.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), September 19, 1999.

Here's a longer article about the same Cabinet meeting:

http://www2.nando.net/noframes/story/0,2107,500035266-500056874- 500019848-0,00.html

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

Clinton cabinet holds 1st meeting to discuss Y2K

Copyright ) 1999 Nando Media

Copyright ) 1999 Associated Press

By TED BRIDIS

WASHINGTON (September 18, 1999 5:05 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - President Clinton's Cabinet met Saturday with the administration's top expert on the Year 2000 technology problem to discuss the response of government agencies to possible Y2K-related computer failures.

Also attending the he closed-door meeting near the White House were leaders from some federal regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Reserve Board and Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

It was the first time the Cabinet assembled for the sole purpose of discussing the Year 2000 glitch.

The government has expressed increasing confidence there will be no nationwide failures of the most important computer systems. But it has acknowledged the likelihood of localized failures in parts of the United States; even more severe problems are anticipated overseas.

"The sense in the room was that certainly there is work left to do, but government has made some real strides in the past year," said John Koskinen, Clinton's top Y2K adviser. "We're going to be in reasonably good shape."

Koskinen said the Cabinet reviewed how individual agencies respond to emergencies, and the implications on other areas of the government. Koskinen is organizing a government-wide coordination center near the White House to share with other agencies information about any Y2K failures during the New Year's weekend.

Saturday's meeting, which last more than three hours, was "to make sure everyone is thinking not only what their responses are but thinking how those responses will affect other agencies," Koskinen said. "Part of the goal was to make sure all the Cabinet members were brought up to speed on the range of possible issues we had to deal with."

The Cabinet also discussed possible failures outlined in the most recent report from Koskinen's Year 2000 council, which indicated that some small health facilities, schools and many small businesses are inadequately prepared for the date rollover.

"The are certainly some areas of concern," Koskinen said. "We touched upon all those issues."

The Y2K problem exists because many older computers and software programs recognize only the last two digits of the year, meaning they might mistakenly interpret "00" as 1900.

About half the Cabinet secretaries attended, including Attorney General Janet Reno, Donna Shalala from Health and Human Services, Commerce Secretary Bill Daley, Rodney Slater of the Transportation Department and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. Other agencies sent deputy secretaries.

Neither Clinton nor Vice President Al Gore attended.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 19, 1999.

So very important that neither the Pres nor the Veep nor half the Cabinet attended. WOW!!! Talk about a heavy duty meeting. MDOLDF (mouth dropped open like a drooling fool)

Am I in some kind of surrealist movie or something? I'm a crazy man, right? Yup! Let me blither on!

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), September 20, 1999.

Suspect Clintons policy decisions re: Y2K were made LONG AGO... so no need to attend. This was just probably an action item meeting.

Was interested in this little snippet, which if true (sent out some e- mail to some who may have attended the meeting) may EXPLAIN Clintons Y2K policy... for the rest of us. Or not.

[snip]

...The most interesting reply came from the guy from the President's Council - he basically said that Bill Clinton had faced the same dilemma: that if he came out loud and strong about potential dangers and urging people to prepare, that it would have split the country in half, much as it did my church. And that might have made the outcome even worse, if the split had not only occurred but deeply divided this country in the crucial months leading up to Y2K (I am articulating my understanding of his point here, not quoting his words per se). So I was led to understand that TPTB had also been "silenced" by the potential of social fracture, and the need for as much time, energy and unified effort as possible to go toward remediation. ...

[snip]

-- (snoozin@no.more), September 18, 1999

Y2K Hot Potato Lands in Laps of Clergy

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001QgE

Anyone with more details?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 20, 1999.

September 20, 1999

DAILY BRIEFING

Clinton Cabinet meets to discuss Y2K issues

From National Journal's Technology Daily

http:// govexec.com/dailyfed/0999/092099t1.htm

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

President Clinton's Cabinet met Saturday with the administration's Y2K czar to discuss problems that may stem from the Year 2000 computer glitch, the Associated press reported.

Behind closed doors, leaders from agencies such as the Federal Reserve Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission met with the Cabinet to discuss how individual agencies should respond to emergencies. This is the first time the Cabinet gathered strictly for the purpose of discussing Y2K.

"The sense in the room was that certainly there is work left to do, but government has made some real strides in the past year, "said John Koskinen, Clinton's top Y2K adviser. "We're going to be in reasonably good shape."

The weekend meeting was "to make sure everyone is thinking not only what their responses are but thinking how those responses will affect other agencies," Koskinen said. "Part of the goal was to make sure all the Cabinet members were brought up to speed on the range of possible issues we had to deal with."

Koskinen also participated in a panel on media coverage of the Y2K date change, which urged all media to "bear a heavy responsibility to avoid Y2K alarmism and to provide balanced coverage" of the date rollover, writes Newsbytes' David McGuire.

While journalists on the panel agreed with the need for "responsible coverage," they warned that industry leaders must do their part in distributing information on Y2K remediation efforts. It is the journalists responsibility to "insist on disclosure, and if (they) don't get it, make non-disclosure the story," said San Jose Mercury News Assistant Managing Editor Jonathan Krim. Industry leaders requested journalists to report what they say are the positive Y2K developments.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 20, 1999.