Doodle Poll Results: "Should BaseCamp CAC conversations be made public?"
Posted by Charlie Fleetham on 29 Jan, 2014
Category: No category
Subject poll is now closed. The results are as follows:
10 - No
1 - Yes
2 - Not Voting
Comments
Frank Burdick on 30 Jan, 2014:
I find it interesting that Mr Fleetham is using this Poll Request as an example. I have email request to Mr Fleetham for 4 to 6 other poll topics in the past that he refused to place in front of the CAC.
The following is an email exchange from Mr. Fleetham and I earlier today:
Re: OHM and subcontractor, Project Innovations intends to conceal communicationnsand records of the SSWWE CAC from the Public
Upon further considersation of the implications of Basecamp and it's lack of transperency I have concluded that Council or City Staff (with Council's approval) should make the the decision.
A poll amongst the volunteers regarding inner-CAC communication or chatter or whatever it is called, will likely lead to an obvious resulting vote from the members. Regardless, it should not be up to the members. Once City Staff or Council makes their decision, then it is up to the members what they choose to say or write on basecamp
Subject: FW: OHM and subcontractor, Project Innovations intends to conceal communicationnsand records of the SSWWE CAC from the Publice
Frank - referring to your comment on the poll: This is not for the volunteers or the Consultatnts to decide. This should be up to City Council, Council authorized the Study. They should provide oversight and a ruling. If the CAC should be deciding anything, it should be on the accuracy. timeliness, and completeness of the City / Consultant responses to the questions on the Log.
I thought you wanted a poll – see below email from your dated January 24th. This request below was a driver in my decision to do a poll.
Subject: Re: OHM and subcontractor, Project Innovations intends to conceal communicationnsand records of the SSWWE CAC from the Publice
Take care of business now. Why wait until the next meeting. Do a poll now within the group. Too much is put off until the meetings and then not enough gets accomplished at meetings.
Facilitate, please.
thanks
Frank Burdick
Charlie Fleetham on 30 Jan, 2014:
Revised Poll Response Tally - "Should BaseCamp CAC Conversations be made public?
9 - No
2- Yes
2 - Not voting
Peter Houk on 31 Jan, 2014:
I didn't vote in the Doodle poll because I didn't see the option I wanted, which was "make the basecamp conversations public after we finish."
Upon further reflection, I guess that makes me a "yes" vote. Yes, they should be public eventually.
And it goes without saying that any decision we make needs to be consistent with state and city laws.
Frank Burdick on 31 Jan, 2014:
Regarding the above statement...."And it goes without saying that any decision we make needs to be consistent with state and city laws."
How about federal law decided by the Supreme Court? The City attorney did not convince me that the FDD is legal. Ask Mr. Fleetham to send you the Laisey Case that only 2 of us on the CAC have received from the City Attorney (as far as I know.). That will be up to courts to decide, very soon. Hence, that is why we must focus all efforts on alternatives while we still can. The litigation is in progress and it will ultimately impact the work of this CAC as it relates to FDDS. Let's focus on alternatives, now, please.
Charlie Fleetham on 31 Jan, 2014:
Frank - regarding "litigation in progress," are your referring to a current suit or an upcoming one?
Also, I can't find the Laisey case attachment. Could you please post?
Thanks.
Robert Czachorski on 31 Jan, 2014:
Please recall that at the last meeting, the CAC agreed to consider FDDs legal for the purposes of completing the work of the CAC, unless it is found otherwise during the project. It is not within the scope of the CAC to decide whether or not FDDs are legal. As you said, that would be up to the courts to decide, should a suit be filed.
We will begin discussing alternatives at the February CAC meeting. I anticipate that the discussion will focus on the broad options that are available to tackle wet weather flow issues in sanitary sewer systems, and will be a continuation and expansion of the investigation that the Best Practices group started last fall. That being said, vetting the alternatives will require that we complete the risk assessment and hydraulic capacity evaluation, which will be ready in April. We first must understand what the problem is in the sanitary sewer system (if any), before we can evaluate alternatives to fix those problems.
I think it is important to keep in mind that the focus of this CAC is not solely to decide on whether or not to continue the FDD program. The focus is broader than that: to consider all alternatives available, and make a recommendation for the future direction of the City's overall wet weather program. To do that, we must follow the process that we have outlined:
Understand the existing flow conditions in the system and how those flows have been affected by the FDDs performed to date (done - results presented in December)
Evaluate the risk of basement backups from the sanitary sewer system for the current flow conditions in the system. (In process - results ready in April)
Perform a hydraulic capacity assessment to identify issues with the current system. (In process - results ready in April)
Evaluate feasible alternatives to address any issues identified. (starting at the February CAC meeting)
Make recommendations for improvement to the system (to be done by the CAC)
We have been very open and transparent about this process from the beginning, have met the delivery milestones so far, and are working diligently on the risk and capacity assessment, and plan to have them ready as promised in April. This is a tried and true process for performing a study like this. For a system as large and complex as the Ann Arbor system, it takes great care and significant effort to work through these steps. Please be patient with us as we work through this process. I promise we will get to a more detailed and thorough evaluation of alternatives, all in due time.
Take care,
Robert
Frank Burdick on 31 Jan, 2014:
Why is the next CAC meeting titled "Doodle: "CAC Scenario - If FDD goes forward, what needs to change?" when we need to focus on alternatives???. We've spent a tremendous amount of time talking about flow rates, legal issues, and recently the survey results. I am most interested in getting TO solutions that are not FDDs. The City and consultants are already convinced of the FDD supposed effectiveness so why do we need to keep hearing the same sermon. Let's move on to alternatives, and understanding the true current picture of the conveyence pipiing and other potential outdated or over-filled infrastructure. Let's not make the mistake of the 2001 SSOE Task Force by spending anymore time on the cheapest option (FDDS) and and not focus on what is best for the City, in the right of way. Note, if anyone takes the time to read the SSOE report, you will find that the destructive FDDS were NOT the recommendation of the SSOE Task Force in every neighborhood. The City took the cheap way out... and, as evidenced by reading the comments in the survey, are now seeing the errors of this frugal decision.
Jim Osborn on 31 Jan, 2014:
"If"
conjunction \ˈif, əf\
—used to talk about the result or effect of something that may happen or be true.
"Why is the next CAC meeting titled "Doodle: "CAC Scenario - If FDD goes forward, what needs to change?"
Because that is what we will be discussing. If (see above Merriam Dictionary definition) we are to discuss many possible solutions, we must understand them all first. We all know that there are issues with the FDD program. That is partially why the CAC was created. So, we must understand what can be done to improve it or change it so that it can be considered.
One fact is the lack of a back-up to it. Another is that some people complained about the contractors being messy.
Should we consider flawed other methods or solutions, or only those other solutions when they are properly implemented? Our job or task is to be an impartial jury and consider all of the evidence. To not do so would be like a jury that only hears testimony from the prosecution. A hanging jury.
We have several meetings to discuss each solution. This is just the first. Why is it first? I suppose because it is what has been done, and is the cause of concern to some, so we need to fully understand it. Too much "chatter" by some prevents this and sets us back and slows us from learning about other methods.
Robert Czachorski on 31 Jan, 2014:
Frank - I am concerned with the underlying implication of this statement: "The City and consultants are already convinced of the FDD supposed effectiveness so why do we need to keep hearing the same sermon."
I think the short answer to this is because you keep asking questions about the flows and challenging the findings. It is the use of the terms "supposed" and "sermon" that is concerning. The implication is that we are putting fourth a conclusion that is not true with a religious-like belief in the findings. This is not true. From the data collected and analysis performed, we know with a high statistical confidence that the FDDs were effective at removing flows in 3 out of the 5 district (99.8% statistical confidence in one case). With a lower statistical confidence, it appears that a 4th district also had a large flow removal. These are conclusions from the application of three independent scientific approaches to analyzing the data. These results are corroborated by the sump pump metering, the curb-line metering, and common metrics from the industry regarding FDD flows. I do not appreciate the implication that this finding is merely "supposed" or part of a "sermon", and I feel compelled to correct the record when such implications are made.
Take care,
Robert
Frank Burdick on 31 Jan, 2014:
Please refer question #12 and 13 from my log (below) The answer we have received from the city is, once again, incomplete and lacking any data. The hypothosis I have is, IF the City has done extensive or moderate repairs to the sanitary sewer system, (pipes, man holes, etc) since 2001 then this could ALSO explain the improved flow rates in your data. (Ie: refer to your previous Scio Township example.) If the city can not prove that they have adequately maintained the sanitary sewer system, then that opens up another huge can of worms. On my own, I researched the legal cases provided to the CAC from the city's CA's office. Take the time to read Highland v Lieberman. Referenced in that case is City of Bloomington Utilities Dept v Walter. I will let you do your own homework to reach your own conclusions.
Call it a sermon or "study results" or educated conclusion. If that is YOUR conclusion, fine. Put in the parking lot and we can focus on other issues. It can be brought to the table IF we ever get to time frame where we are to make a recommendation to Council.
12
Does the city
have a formal program for sealing the existing Sanitary sewers from storm
water surface leaks and ground water infiltration (similar to Scio Twshp)
11/12/2013
13
Can the City
provide a history of all efforts to "camera inspect" and repair
existing sanitary sewers since 2001?
11/12/2013
Peter Houk on 1 Feb, 2014:
I want the conversations released at the end of the process so that anyone who questions our recommendation or the effectiveness of our CAC can clearly see the circumstances in which we worked. As it is, many of our posts are being publicized regardless of our recent vote. (See Dave Askin's recent column in the Chronicle.) If the messages aren't released as a complete body, then the person doing the releasing can choose what gets publicized and may not include his or her own unpleasant, disrespectful, and off-topic posts.
Frank Burdick on 2 Feb, 2014:
tracking #06. Acknowledgement and Response log.
Jim Osborn on 2 Feb, 2014:
Frank,
What is the purpose of the "tracking #X Acknowledgement and Response log"? It's some useless information. It doesn't fire my imagination. I do not need to see your "log."
it is having the effect of making me consider skipping or to ignore any new postings by you. And some of yours are worth reading, but they get buried by stuff like this.
Comments
Frank Burdick on 30 Jan, 2014:
Charlie Fleetham on 30 Jan, 2014:
Peter Houk on 31 Jan, 2014:
Frank Burdick on 31 Jan, 2014:
Charlie Fleetham on 31 Jan, 2014:
Robert Czachorski on 31 Jan, 2014:
Frank Burdick on 31 Jan, 2014:
Jim Osborn on 31 Jan, 2014:
Robert Czachorski on 31 Jan, 2014:
Frank Burdick on 31 Jan, 2014:
Peter Houk on 1 Feb, 2014:
Frank Burdick on 2 Feb, 2014:
Jim Osborn on 2 Feb, 2014:
Frank Burdick on 2 Feb, 2014: