← Back to the list of projects

City of Ann Arbor SSWWEP - Citizens Advisory Committee Coordination — City of Ann Arbor

← Back to messages

Too Much Information and CAC Member Behavior

Posted by Jim Osborn on 11 Feb, 2014
Category: No category

Strange, I clicked on "new message" and it was titled "CAC Member Behavior", which is partially right for this posting.

Robert said that this CAC risks "being overwhelmed with information and focusing on tangent issues that are not central to making a decision...". And Charlie said : "a) dismissing too much information into the parking lot and making a decision based on inadequate information, b) being overwhelmed with information and focusing on tangent issues that are not central to making a decision.  I think that there is a far greater risk right now of item b."

I agree. I have a day job, an evening class, and a social life. I am starting to spend a lot of time on this CAC, but I do not have the time, now do I care to spend it if I did, on reading "tangent issues that are not central to making a decision."  Posting lengthy logs and new posting after new posting and question after question becomes a distraction to us all, and many of us do not have the time to read it all. Due to this, some pertinent facts might be missed. Compounding this problem, some habitually use acronyms for many new nouns instead of spelling them out for those who may not know, and then deride others for not knowing.

By reading another thread, I learned that when a group of homes undergo a footing drain disconnect (FDD), the sump pump pumps footing drain water into a common storm drain, called a curb line in this thread, that is close to the sidewalk prior to emptying into the storm drain. I didn't know this but was chastised for this. Why didn't I know it? I'm not a civil engineer, but I have designed avionic enclosures and climate control systems for Ford, and many of these skills are transferable. FDDs are a new topic for me, and 1) it was either never discussed or 2) it was, but the discussion became buried under many "non-central issues in the Q&A log".  I doubt that I am alone on this, and that is a shame. These "curb lines" should be at least looked at.

This CAC has limited resources and time to spend on this project and recommendation, and there are a lot of non-central issues in the Q&A log"

One posting said, "Not focusing on the FDD CURB LINE is like not focusing on the gas tank when the car doesn't work". If true, and since that author felt that this is an important issue, it would have been far more productive to this group if he had politely and patiently explained what a "curb line" is and what it does, and why he felt that they are a source of failure. That would have received everyone's attention, especially mine. Instead, he questions the competence of many, and worse, has called the consultants incompetent, and is "...writing him "off" Basecamp..."

Our task is to be like a jury and listen to facts from expert witnesses. Unlike a jury, we get to ask questions, too.  It is quite right to bring in new topics and expand our knowledge and suggest things that the consultants may not be focusing on, but too much non-essential information and tangents distracts us all from accomplishing our mission.
This mission is to stop raw sewage from backing into basements, balancing cost with methods. A second part of it is that if footing drains are disconcerted, then that basements are not flooded with rainwater.

Too many questions, facts, and tangents keep us from accomplishing this. Core questions and discussions will get us to a solution.

Comments

Frank Burdick on 13 Feb, 2014:

Regarding the statement:Our task is to be like a jury and listen to facts from expert witnesses. Unlike a jury, we get to ask questions, too.
Unfortunately, in this "Courtroom" there is only one side presenting the case and no experts challenging the City on their side of the case.   This CAC would have been better served if, along with ALL of the volunteers, there was also an Engineer trained in this line of work, AND an attorney.

Hence, the city has placed that burden on a group of US citizens to become engineering and legal experts to make a recommendation. 
So that leads me to the statement, "it would have been far more productive to this group if he had politely and patiently explained what a "curb line" is and what it does, and why he felt that they are a source of failure. 

As a volunteer on this CAC it is up to EACH of us to OUR homework and learn all of the facts.  It is not up to me to do anyone's homework for them or to teach anyone.  That is the PAID consultants job and after these many months, I would suggest that that they have not completed that effort. Perhaps the CAC members should ask the consultants why some don't know what a "curb line" is.  

I take this role seriously and will continue to send lengthy posts or whatever it takes to help me with my understanding of all the issues.  So sorry that this complicated issue can not be solved in a TWITTER-TWO-LINE fashion.

Charlie Fleetham on 13 Feb, 2014:

I think the analogy to a trial is erroneous.  The Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation Project is a study.  No case has been presented.  What has been presented are the results of metering 5 target areas and a statistical analysis that confirmed that the flow reductions in the three of the target areas was incontrovertably due to FDDs.  This finding is not conjecture.  It has become a fact.  Furthermore, the City has never directed us to present a "case" for or against FDD's. Period.  

Frank Burdick on 13 Feb, 2014:

Mr Fleetham has used the JURY, the JURY ROOM, the JUDGE speaking to the JURY.  He has refused to Poll the CAC members with questions that I have had... such as...who on the CAC lives in target area... or ...how many CAC member have attended 3 or more meetings where the Public has spoken out regarding FDDs?  Mr. Fleetham has called me to say that that kind of polling happens later in the "case" when have the facts are  "back" in the JURY room.  Hence,  Mr. Fleetham has contributed to the TRIAL/ JURY analogy.  I rest my case.

Charlie Fleetham on 13 Feb, 2014:

Regarding the refusal to poll the CAC members about their addresses or their meeting attendance:  1) I distributed a CAC roster with addresses that was distributed without permission outside the CAC; therefore, I am not going to ask CAC members to reveal their addresses, 2) the matter of how many meetings one has attended is immaterial - the major point is whether or not the CAC member is attending the SSWWE CAC meetings and attendance has been good.  In addition, all but one CAC member attended the 2/6 public meeting and all but one CAC members has or will take advantage of the Tech Briefing opportunity.  This poll adds no value to the process. 

Regarding the jury comments that I made, I made these statements in response to claims that the CAC members needed much more education and/or screening to serve on the CAC.  What I said was that it was our job to present the information so that it could be understood by someone without a technical background (paraphrase).  And that I had confidence in all of the CAC members to preform their service competently (paraphrase).  To imply that I have analogized the SSWWE study to a legal trial is false.

But all of this rhetoric is really a distraction.   The most important point for all CAC members to understand is that the OHM Team has not been directed by the City to steer the CAC to recommend a continuation of Target Area FDDs.

Jim Osborn on 13 Feb, 2014:

Mr. Burdick said, "As a volunteer on this CAC it is up to EACH of us to OUR homework and learn all of the facts."

This is incorrect. It is up to us to learn the useful facts, and not be distracted by tangents and information that does not help us reach our goal of finding he best solution for all affected homeowners, taxpayers, water & sewer rate payers, and following state laws. Robert said that this CAC risks "being overwhelmed with information and focusing on tangent issues that are not central to making a decision...".

We have engineers involved. One works for the city and others are hired consultants that specialize in this and have successfully performed similar studies for other municipalities. It serves no useful purpose to say that we do not or to suggest that we need "...an Engineer trained in this line of work", implying that we have none. Ditto for legal counsel. (another long distraction)

"...or to teach anyone.  That is the PAID consultants job and after these many months, I would suggest that that they have not completed that effort..."

This is true, but not from a lack of effort. Instead, it is because this CAC bhas been distracted and derailed by many, many redundant questions, comments, and legal threats. If they were allowed to do their jobs, we would be much closer to a resolution.

"I rest my case"  Now others can begin to speak and be heard, while you are respectfully listening to others in the CAC.

Frank Burdick on 13 Feb, 2014:

We could go on and on like this as I do have many response to all of the above statements made by commenterS above.... however.... As has it has been pointed out.... I have already rested my case.  It's up to the JURY now.  

Perhaps the perception of "distraction" would not be so prevelent IF the City would be more forthcoming with timely, accurate, and attributal responses.  Questions will be continued to be repeated and asked until the response is received.  I would suggest that the distraction lies more in the lack of forthrightness from the City than with "messenger" of the questions.

Nick Hutchinson on 13 Feb, 2014:

I would like add one clarification on terminology, just so we are all speaking the same language. In Civil Engineering terms, "curb line" typically refers to the actual path of the actual curb & gutter itself.  The pipes that have been installed behind the curb in many of the study areas are called "curb drains."

In regards to the providing of timely information, City staff have been meeting on a weekly basis to address questions on the Q&A Log. However, we do have limited resources and many of the requests/questions require a substantial amount of time and effort to pull together information and compile it. We are working on these items and will continue to do so.

Frank Burdick on 13 Feb, 2014:

Many of these questions originated in mid November. 

Jim Osborn on 13 Feb, 2014:

"Perhaps the CAC members should ask the consultants why some don't know what a "curb line" is?"

Thanks Nick, for this timely definition of the differences between a "curb line" and a "curb drain", and Lori for providing the capacity of each, showing that there is a lot of excess. Prior to this week, I had not heard of a either.

Frank Burdick on 19 Feb, 2014:

Too Much Information and CAC Member Behavior 
is the title of this question or post.  c. fleetham used the "notecards/ college paper" comparison at our last cac meeting.  so what exact issue or question is not relevent?  who should decide this.... the group or one person.? should this not be part of the cac meetings?

how much information would the cac not know if many of these quesstions were not asked? we would have had just the ohm data and be expected to just go along with the desired outcomes.  hnmmmm, who was it that first used the phrase win/win that has now been adopted by c. fleetham.  look it up.