← Back to the list of projects

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

← Back to messages

Frank Burdick and Basecamp

Posted by Robert Czachorski on 26 Feb, 2014
Category: No category

Folks,

I am writing to let you know that Frank Burdick has been removed from Basecamp due to the frequent violation of the established group norms. This decision was a joint decision by the project team (City and OHM team).  He has not been removed from the CAC, and he has been offered a path to getting back onto Basecamp - he has to agree to follow the norms.  The City is attempting to schedule a meeting with him to review the norms, the violations, and ask him if he can agree to follow them going forward.

If Frank can agree to follow the norms going forward, he will be given access to Basecamp again.  All his prior posts will remain here, and if he is granted access again, he will be able to read all the posts made during his absence.  He will also have access to the Q&A log following the procedures of its publication to the City's web site (every 2 weeks).

This is not a decision that we take lightly, but we felt that it was important to implement so that the CAC can efficiently conduct their business. This is the reason for establishing the group norms in the first place. Please feel free to contact me or the City if you have any questions of concerns.

Take care,
Robert

Comments

Joe Conen on 27 Feb, 2014:

Robert,
I am not sure this is the best approach. I would hope that everyone could find their own way of coping with Frank's (or anyone else's) approach. So while I don't agree with the vitriol, some of the information and ideas are helpful in my thinking.
Joe

Judy Hanway on 28 Feb, 2014:

Robert and all who voted to remove Frank from Basecamp,

I don't like this approach either. Frank Burdick has made an incredible contribution to this CAC through his questioning, research, and creative problem-solving on Basecamp. The amount of frustration with the FDDP and the process of trying to do something about it is huge. We all express this frustration in different ways.

Charlie Fleetham on 28 Feb, 2014:

There was no vote to remove Frank from Basecamp.  It was a unified decision by the project team based on fulfilling the commitment to the CAC to maintain the norms that were agreed to by the CAC on Feb 13. Further, frustration with the FDDP does not give anyone a license to break these norms, which are commonly accepted throughout the governmental and business worlds. 

Judy Hanway on 28 Feb, 2014:

To vote is to make a choice. A choice was made by the project team. 

What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature.  ~Voltaire

Charlie Fleetham on 28 Feb, 2014:

Speaking of laws, where is justice in this matter?  What is our obligation the other CAC members, to the project team, and to the City to maintain a civil discourse where all participants do not have to fear being drowned out, bullied, intimidated or thrown under the bus? Furthermore, Frank is still on the CAC and welcome back to Basecamp under the conditions laid out by Robert.  I do not believe that asking someone to follow the norms that the CAC agreed to - is onerous or displays a lack of tolerance. 

Judy Hanway on 28 Feb, 2014:

I stated my opinion: 

I don't like this approach either. Frank Burdick has made an incredible contribution to this CAC through his questioning, research, and creative problem-solving on Basecamp. The amount of frustration with the FDDP and the process of trying to do something about it is huge. We all express this frustration in different ways.

I didn't expect anyone to agree with me. 

Michelle Lovasz on 28 Feb, 2014:

The removal of Frank is dramatic. I am coming to understand that there
are many of you that knew Frank before this CAC and were accustomed to his
ways. There are others, though, that were startled and sometimes silenced
by his ways. I have gotten to know his ways a little bit, myself, on this
CAC. I understand Frank means no harm, but also that he doesn’t mind to
the harm created. Some are far more subtle than he, but that doesn’t mean
that they have less to contribute. I understand Frank can be back on
BaseCamp if he wants, and I hope he wants.

Robert Czachorski on 1 Mar, 2014:

Tolerance is accepting that each person is free to live their life as they choose, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. Both parts of this definition must be followed for tolerance to be effective: acceptance of others and a commitment not to violate the rights of others.

The project team has been charged with successfully completing this project, and the CAC has been charged with making recommendations. To do this as a team, we must be tolerant of the views of others, while not obstructing or interfering with the ability of others to perform their functions.

The norms define some reasonable guidelines to accomplish this. When the team accepted the norms, they made a commitment to both be tolerant of the views of others and to not obstruct others from performing their duties.

Those who made the decision to remove Frank from Basecamp are tolerant of his views, but can not allow his chosen method of conveying those views to obstruct and interfere with the team’s ability to perform their duties and objectives.

If Frank can not agree to follow the norms, he will be unable to continue to serve on the CAC. We hope that he will agree to follow the norms and continue to serve on the CAC.

Judy Hanway on 2 Mar, 2014:

Just want the other CAC members to know that Frank has made multiple efforts to meet with city representatives to discuss this issue.  To date, a meeting has not occurred.

Robert Czachorski on 3 Mar, 2014:

Folks,

Given the above discussion, I thought that I would provide the steps that we have outlined the steps with Frank that are necessary for him to be added back into Basecamp.  Those include:

1.  Meet with the City to discuss his behavior and the norms
2.  Agree to follow the norms in the future
3.  Apologize to Charlie for the accusation of "stifling" public engagement

Frank has made valuable contributions to the team and we hope that he will agree to the above steps and continue to serve on the CAC. The above post by Judy makes it sounds as if Frank has tried to meet with the City, and the City is refusing.  Below I have outlined the sequence of events and attempts made by the City to schedule a meeting with Frank. 

On Friday Feb 21, the week before Frank was removed from Basecamp, the City provided Frank six time slots on three different days during the week of 2/24 that they were available to meet and discuss norms and Basecamp.  Frank rejected all of these slots, and offered a single evening slot later in the week, which was not open for Nick and Cresson.  There were several message over the week to attempt to find a mutually open slot to meet. Over the following weekend (Feb 22/23) and early the week of 2/24, Frank escalated his tone on Basecamp, repeatedly violating several norms, and the City and OHM jointly decided to remove him from Basecamp, pending the meeting with the City. Frank and the City are currently coordinating to find another meeting time this week that meets Frank's requirements for availability (after regular business hours or on Saturday).  On Thursday 2/27, the City provided Frank with three addition slots this week that are open and meet his time requirements.  As far as I know, the meeting has not yet been scheduled, because Frank has not responded.


Nick Hutchinson on 3 Mar, 2014:

Robert is correct.  We have given Frank several time slots this week in the evenings that we are available to meet, and we are awaiting his response.

Michelle Lovasz on 6 Mar, 2014:

Beverly, I agree that this should be on the agenda.  This lawsuit has existed alongside and within our CAC for the entire time, has been and still is a distraction.  I am not sure what you mean "However, the more I ponder, the more concerned I get that only one side of the story is being told."  

Peter Houk on 6 Mar, 2014:

Link to article in Ann Arbor Observer about the last city council race. 

(Our little project is mentioned in it!)

http://annarborobserver.com/articles/a__250_000_election__full_article.html

Beverly Smith on 7 Mar, 2014:

Michelle and all,
After re-reading my post I see how my comments may be interpreted as disrespectful to one of our CAC members and a city council member. That was not my intent, and I’d like to retract those statements and apologize for those words.
What I do mean, is that I am concerned that only one city council member has attended any CAC meetings to hear the rich discussions we have had. I think it is important for all city council members to hear from the entire CAC, as we have not yet come to consensus on recommendations. I think the council should see how committed the CAC members are to coming to consensus on this very difficult issue.

Michelle Lovasz on 7 Mar, 2014:

I was pondering the same. I have been wondering about Council, the body to
whom we will make our recommendation. To that end, I’ve been reading as
much local politics as I can interest myself in, and find the constant DDA
vs Infrastructure story.

Nick Hutchinson on 7 Mar, 2014:

All, if you would like to have a discussion with (or presentation to) Council at some point (perhaps at a Council work session or such), let me know and I can pass on that request.

Michelle Lovasz on 7 Mar, 2014:

Thanks Nick.  I'm still not sure.  I'm still wondering on approach.  We could invite Council Members to a CAC, or a brainstorming.  We could contact them individually, or a group.  However we do it we do need to try to assess Council's concerns against/alongside our CAC concerns, so that we have a better shot at the CAC recommendation actually having an effect.

Nick Hutchinson on 7 Mar, 2014:

Feel free to discuss some more and let me know.  I can certainly help facilitate.

Jim Osborn on 7 Mar, 2014:

While at a public meeting for a housing project, I spoke to a councilman on Wednesday about this, for all of 15 seconds, and his reply is that he is waiting for the report. He seemed open minded to the process, and is talking to just a few on the CAC.

Charlie Fleetham on 7 Mar, 2014:

I appreciate very much Beverly's reflection on her original post and her decision to make a new post. This action represents a strong commitment to maintaining the CAC norms. Thanks!

Jim Osborn on 7 Mar, 2014:

Oops, I meant to say, "and is NOT talking to just a few on the CAC." I forgot to add the word "not"

Michelle Lovasz on 7 Mar, 2014:

I wondered about that Jim, thanks!!  So is he talking to any?  Or just waiting for the report?

Jim Osborn on 7 Mar, 2014:

I believe that he preferred to wait, see what was recommended, and not be persuaded by anyone or lobbied.

Joe Conen on 7 Mar, 2014:

I would prefer to engage council only after we are ready to make a recommendation.
The exception would be if we need council to do something before we are done.

Michelle Lovasz on 8 Mar, 2014:

I see that too.

Kathy Boris on 9 Mar, 2014:

I believe that Jack Eaton has attended every officially scheduled CAC
meeting so far. For this he has my great respect.
If Basecamp were not password protected, both the public and our city
council members would be able to easily keep abreast of the work we are
doing.

kb

Kathy Boris on 9 Mar, 2014:

I believe that Jack Eaton has attended every officially scheduled CAC
meeting so far. For this he has my great respect.
If Basecamp were not password protected, both the public and our city
council members would be able to easily keep abreast of the work we are
doing.

kb

Kathy Boris on 9 Mar, 2014:

My impression was that when we volunteered to join the SSWWEP CAC, we were,
in effect, volunteering to focus our attention on the sanitary sewer wet
weather issue in a way that members of city council would never have time
to do. So, I’m not understanding why we would seek to meet with city
council before we, as a CAC, sort out all of the information that has been
presented to us, and the information that we have requested, and work out a
recommendation to present to city council later this summer.

kb

Judy Hanway on 9 Mar, 2014:

I support Kathy's statement above: 

I believe that Jack Eaton has attended every officially scheduled CAC
meeting so far. For this he has my great respect.
If Basecamp were not password protected, both the public and our city
council members would be able to easily keep abreast of the work we are
doing.

We shouldn't be criticizing an elected official for doing his job. 

In addition, because Basecamp is not open to the public or City Council, it makes it more difficult, if not impossible, to keep up with what is going on in the CAC.

Michelle Lovasz on 9 Mar, 2014:

If he was criticized, I missed it Judy.

Charlie Fleetham on 9 Mar, 2014:

From a public engagement perspective, Basecamp is not intended to be a project management tool.  City Council and the public are being provided project information on the A2 website as well as updates from the project team. OHM has a set of contractually obligated tasks and is on schedule with all tasks and has reported this to the City on routine intervals.   In every public engagement contract I have ever been involved in, the above process along with observable committee meetings and public meetings has been sufficient for informing elected officials.  On this project, we are also providing video-tapes of committee meetings, which is not common on most municipal projects.

If elected officials want additional information or interaction with citizen committees, workshops are often held to provide this information and interaction, especially for long duration projects like this one. Therefore, I support a serious consideration of Beverly Smith's suggestion of a workshop on the SSWWE project for City Council.  It could provide helpful information and context for understanding the CAC's final recommendation - before it comes. Elected official review of key project data is a very common practice.

Regarding Basecamp, it is being used to facilitate conversations among CAC members about the SSWWE project. These conversations are not project deliverables; therefore, monitoring them does not tell anyone "what is going on with the project."  If disclosed, these CAC conversations could help Council and the public understand CAC member thoughts, interests, and questions about the project.  Please note - all  technical answers to CAC questions are put into the log and are furnished to the public on the A2 website every two weeks.

For me, we are in uncharted territory with Basecamp.  I have never worked a project where the non-meeting conversations between committee members were considered to be "part of public record" - which is an opinion that some CAC members seem to hold. Obviously, without Basecamp, emails would be the only record of CAC member communications. Would CAC members want their personal emails from/to other CAC members, furnished to the public?  Would CAC members want all project team emails furnished to the public?  I have not been on a project where this type of data was furnished to the public, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done. 

A majority of the CAC decided that they did not want Basecamp posts to be open to the public. I would appreciate knowing if that opinion has changed, because the OHM Team can do a daily extract of all CAC postings and load it on the A2 site.  In addition, if a majority of CAC members no longer want to use Basecamp, it can be terminated and we can return to the prior process or a modified process of communicating through email. 

Robert Czachorski on 11 Mar, 2014:

Folks,

Beverly Smith retracted an earlier post due to the potential of it violating the group norms, and restated it above.  For that reason, I have deleted the original post from Basecamp. 

Beverly - thank you for your contributions and for restating the original message more clearly.

Take care,
Robert