When you assume ...
False assumptions lead to false estimates.
I wrote
earlier about how the city's assumption that the Open Government Online amendment required them to put constituent email online in
real time caused them to overstate their cost estimate. (The charter amendment itself actually only requires that they archive it for a longer period of time - an expense, but not on the scale the city describes.)
To assume that the city's incoming email would have to go online in real time
would cost a lot of money, but the amendment
doesn't require that. When you make that assumption, though, there's a lot of extra, expensive stuff you get to
build into your cost estimate. So how much would we save by not doing it? Here's Peter Collins (from the
closed-caption transcript of the city council meeting on the city's website) on what costs he assigned in his $36 million cost estimate to that phantom expense (sorry about the caps, that's how it is on their system):
I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CONTENT MANAGEMENT TEAM THAT WOULD SOMEHOW MANAGE ALL THE E-MAIL. AND, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST FOR COUNCIL, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, COUNCILMEMBERS, MAYOR PRO TEM AND CITY MANAGEMENT DOWN TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LEVEL, JUST TO THROW A LITTLE VOLUME OUT, JUST EXTERNAL E-MAIL AND INCOMING E-MAIL IS ABOUT 100,000 A MONTH. THAT DOESN'T COUNT INTERNAL E-MAIL GOING BACK AND FORTH MAYBE TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT OR MAYBE TO HUMAN RESOURCES, SO THAT NUMBER COULD GET A LOT HIGHER.
AS FAR AS YOUR TELEPHONE LOGS, IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 26 CALLS A MONTH ALONE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE LOGGED AND NOTED. BUT AS FAR AS WITH THE REALTIME, THE OTHER APPLICATIONS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE, OUR COUNTER SYSTEM IS REALTIME. WHEN WE DO CERTAIN TASKS IN THAT, IT IS AVAILABLE FOR OTHER FOLKS TO SEE. BUT AGAIN, IT ALL DEPENDS ON OUR NETWORK, THE BANDWIDTH, HOW WELL OUR FIRE WALLS ARE WORKING IN SOME CASES, THE ROUTERS.
IT'S A COMPLETE PACKAGE TO PROVIDE REALTIME. THE QUOTE HERE OR THE ESTIMATE -- AND IT IS AN ESTIMATE. WITHIN THAT ESTIMATE, WHAT DRIVES COST TREMENDOUSLY IS REALTIME. YOU PAY A PRICE FOR REALTIME. IT'S A PREMIUM. BUT ALSO IN THIS THAT THERE IS -- WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO WAY TODAY THAT I COULD PROVIDE AN APPLICATION THAT CAN READ AN E-MAIL AND MAKE THAT JUDGMENT CALL THAT I'M NOT GOING TO VIOLATE ANYBODY'S PRIVACY. SO THAT'S THERE'S WHY THERE'S ALSO A STAFF FIGURE IN THE ESTIMATE TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS GOING TO DO THAT WORK TO START FILTERING CONTENT BEFORE OR SOMEHOW IS IN REALTIME GET TO THE WEB TO WHERE SOMEBODY CAN ACCESS IT. SO IT'S A VERY CHALLENGING PART TO DO. AND THE BIGGEST MISSING FACTOR FOR US IS THERE'S NO PROGRAM -- NO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS GOING TO COMPREHEND THAT.
So if you assume that sort of elaborate system is required, then yeah that can get really expensive. But if you assume all that's not necessary, if you assume all that's required is that email is archived (there's a whole section specifically spelling out requirements for electronic communications), how much would that reduce the $36 million estimate? My guess is quite a lot, but you can't tell how much from the
city's cost figures (pdf).
So that's how spurious arguments by lawyers become spurious budget estimates by IT experts - the lawyers interpret the language in an inaccurate, politicized way, then the IT guy costs the estimates based on the assumptions he's given. At the end of the day, though, the number developed is more of a political figure than a business-like estimate. It's not that implenting the amendment wouldn't require any front end investment, but the city's cost estimate overstates the amount by a lot.
The city also misreads the amendment to require immediate transition to online disclosure of all public information. This leads to millions in short-term consulting costs for immediate implementation. A less sweeping, aggressive interpretation, though, might note that only a few areas of city business must be posted online within one year of passage; the remainder must be done as “expeditiously as possible” and "to the greatest extent practical." This “practical” basis means implementing public disclosure of city information on the internet on a timeline that makes sense, in a practical, cost-effient manner, not based on impractical, over-the-top extremist interpretations.
Don't forget that this proposal is a charter amendment. After it's approved by voters, the city council gets to pass ordinances that interpret how narrowly or broadly these passages will apply. At that time we can assume the most vocal critics on city council then will have their proper chance to decide which records should or sometimes shouldn't go online - e.g., when they think it wouldn't be possible or practical. Some on the Austin city council feel this amendment means proponents don't trust them, but in this and many cases, decisions about what records to put online will, at the end of the day, be entirely in council's hands.
Real Time
The phrase "real time" in the Open Open Government Online
charter amendment is only used in two specific contexts - publishing calendars and phone logs for top officials and for filings by certain developers that are already electronic when submitted. All that means is that the city must post that particular information online as soon as they have it. They couldn't keep two official calendars, for example, and put the information online later.
Otherwise, "real time" in the amendment represents a goal of immediacy, but never a requirement. City legal's expansive
interpretation comes from a line in the opening section of the charter amendment that lays out its intent. The complete sentence reads: "The City must, as expeditiously as possible and to the greatest extent practical, make all public information available online in real time and accessible to the public." The qualifiers as to what's "possible" and "practical" give council an enormous amount of wiggle room to not have to implement real time components when it's not possible or not practical.
Remember, this is a charter amendment - the city implements the actual policies later through ordinance and can use all the leeway and discretion implied there. It's becoming a hobby for our opponents to make up some outlandish scenario where publishing information would cause a problem them claim the amendment "requires" it to go online. But if a suggestion for something to go online doesn't seem "practical" or "possible," the city has all the authority it needs to make that judgement.
City's bogus cost estimate stems from bogus assumptions
Lies are like threads in a cheap sweater. You pull one string and the whole thing can unravel.
The City of Austin's ridiculous claim that the Open Government Online Amendment would
cause citizen email to publish online makes better sense of their assertion that it will cost some ridiculously high amount to implement - $36 million, they estimated. But estimates are based on assumptions. So when you cost out staff and systems for vetting every single email to council and city department heads to put online in "real time" - something the amendment in NO way requires them to do - I'm sure you do get a high number.
But it's based on a lie.
City's claim that emails go on line ridiculous, fiction
OH. MY. GOD.
The Austin City Council must literally think nobody's watching them. After hearing the language they placed on the ballot to describe the Open Government Online charter amendment - hell, I might vote against it if any of it were true.
Most angering was the absurd and patently false claim that under the amendment all the public's email--including individual communications to health clinics or police--must be put online in real time. As though anybody wants to look at that many more ads for Valium and Rolex on somebody else's email in real time!!
That's absurd. The amendment only requires that email be archived. That's it. Records retention. The amendment explicitly requires the city to abide by laws related to personal privacy while it generally increases the availability of information online. It does not require posting of emails on line. Here's the entire section of the
charter amendment regarding email correspondence:
(C)OPEN ACCESS TO CITY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
(1)In order to better preserve written electronic communication for public disclosure, the City must establish a system that automatically archives all incoming and outgoing electronic communication that deals with City business to and from the following people in their official capacity: (a) City Councilmembers and their staff; (b) City Manager and his or her staff; (c) Assistant City Managers and their staff; and (d) all department heads.
(2)The above people are prohibited from discussing City business via any form of written electronic communication, such as a private email account, that is outside of the City’s automatic archiving system.
That's the whole section. Would somebody tell me where that says email goes online?
The City is making ridiculous interpretations of language elsewhere that describes the larger intent of the amendment--to make Austin a leader in open, transparent and online government--but ignoring the specific language on the topic, not to mention state law that makes correspondence about allegations of crime to the police, for example, or personal health information confidential by law.
I'm too angry now to write more, but future blog items, I'm sure, will further dissect the piece of fiction that voters will see representing this amendment on the ballot.
UPDATE: The Statesman has placed the City's
misleading ballot language online (pdf), along with their
initial coverage. Even though their editorial page opposed the measure, I hope the newspaper will show more integrity than the city council did and explain to the public how biased and misleading this ballot language really is.
City Council misleading voters with open government ballot language
If Austin City Councilmembers want to campaign against the Open Government Online Charter Amendment as individuals on their own time, that is their right. But campaigning against the amendment using their official positions is a huge disservice to the voters. Disgracefully, that's what's happening, though. The proposed ballot language for the open government online amendment has little to do with the actual language in the amendment.
Every line of the proposed ballot language is designed to mislead voters into opposing the initiative. For example, it says public officials' "personal correspondence" would be put online. That's wrong on at least two levels: First, the amendment doesn't affect any records except those related to city business. The idea that personal correspondence would become public is simply a flat out lie. Second, the charter amendment simply DOES NOT mandate that email correspondence of councilmembers go online - it only requires that it be archived, which the city does already, just for a shorter time. That's just not a significant change, but opponents of the amendment are intentionally overstating their objections.
Another sleazy tactic: The langage says that "companies seeking to do business" with the City must "waive their right to protect proprietary business information submitted to the City." Again, that's a flat-out falsehood: Only businesses seeking tax waivers and special subsidies must disclose certain new business information, but the vast majority of companies doing business with the City of Austin aren't looking for government handouts and wouldn't be affected.
Similarly, the proposed language includes speculative, conclusory statements that amount to smears against the initiative, hardly accurate assessments of what it does. The amendment "could expose the city to financial liability," it declares, without stating which part of the amendment supposedly does so. Of course, any city action "could" expose the city to liability, but they only include the caveat on the proposals they all oppose.
The City Council's disingenuous manipulation of the open government online ballot language shows exactly why this initiative is needed -- they just can't be trusted to act in the public's interest or to engage important issues honestly.
Open Government Austin blog born!
So, in light of all the misinformation that is floating out there about the Open Government Online amendment this blog about the amendment and the campaign to make Austin a leader in open access is born.
Special thanks to the City for the free wireless connection at City Hall, which has allowed us to create this blog despite being forced to wait for the City's latest attempt to send a depth charge towards clean government during open session. Today (Thursday), the City is trying to set the ballot language for the amendment with half-truths and mis-statements about what the OGO does.
Today's Austin Chronicle said to look for Brewster McCracken to lead the charge against the amendment "and to harm his case by overstating it." McCracken's "doomsday version of the proposal conjures child pornographers slithering one step ahead of the law – for, in his estimation, police investigating cybercrime fall under the officials required to disclose all their contacts. That probably ain't the case, but it shows how much fun the amendment will engender."
This language is extremely important for Austin voters, as this is what shows up on the voting machines on the day of the election. We can only hope (and wait for council to reconvene) that the City won't inject spurious and misleading text into the ballot language.
