I have received a polite e-mail request from someone in the industry asking me to stop posting meeting minutes and breakout session summaries, with any attendant commentary. The reason given is that the minutes and summaries do not present the whole picture and only someone who was actually at a meeting (as the e-mailer was) would know the comprehensive details and actual focus of what was discussed. And since I was not present at these meetings, I am therefore guilty of misrepresenting and/or misinterpreting issues based only on the minutes/summaries posted to the NERC site.

First, I can fully appreciate that being present at a meeting is by far a more optimum way to know about any issues discussed. However, even a small percentage of industry people, let alone the public, are able to attend these meetings/ workshops. It's my understanding that one of the reasons these meeting minutes and breakout session summaries are put online in a publicly accessible site is so industry people themselves can access them, as well as the public. Certainly, if NERC did not want these documents to be accessed by the public, they could make them accessible only on a Registration Required industry site, just as many documents already are taken out of the public domain.

Second, NERC committee meeting Minutes are voted on at the next meeting and approved as acceptable, in the same process any organization uses. Anyone reading them, including industry people, can only go by what has been put into the Minutes and then approved. Meeting minutes _exist_ to give those who were not present a summary of what occurred. If they provide an inaccurate picture the fault is with whoever compiled and voted on the minutes, not with anyone who reads them.

Third, Workshop session summaries are in a different category than meeting minutes and I concur that only a transcript of the session's questions and answers would be able to impart the full context of what was discussed. Again, however, the summaries are posted to a public site, and giving a fuller context was at the discretion of whoever composed the information in the first place.

It was also suggested that I e-mail or talk to those in attendance, before posting meeting information, in order to get their input first. This presumes that I have the e-mail addresses of those present, or that I otherwise know how to contact them. Even if I did, over the past year I have sent e-mails requesting clarification/information on various topics to various NERC representatives (for which an e-mail addy was provided for the _express_ purpose of contact for more information) and to date I have not received even ONE reply back.

Finally, if there is more to what was discussed at these meetings and breakout sessions than is available in the minutes/summaries, or a different intent was meant than what appears from the written words, then for heaven's sake put the information out here on this forum if you were in attendance and know all the circumstances! Enlighten us, clarify and expand the information, don't just ask me to cease and desist. I can't read minds, I can only go with what I see is written in black and white.

I will hereafter, when posting minutes/summaries, put a caveat that there may be other interpretations and/or expansion of what is contained in said minutes or summaries, and therefore readers should be aware that an incomplete or erroneous picture might be presented by what is written -- but that's as far as I can in good conscience go. If something is put on a public access web site, then it is for PUBLIC consumption or it shouldn't be there in the first place.

If I am out of line in respectfully denying your request, I trust that readers of this forum will let me know. What DO participants in this forum think about this situation?

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

Answers

I agree with you, Bonnie.

Translation of e-mailer's request: some readers have brains that they can use, and years of experience in the real world in which they have learned to evaluate many different situations, so please quit posting information that the industry does not release to the press which can be interpreted to contradict the public, all-is-well press-release mentality.

Bad Bonnie. Baaaaad, baaaaaaad Bonnie [shaking finger, a la Clinton]. ;-)

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

Bonnie,

Keep it up.

This takes us back to OPEN, HONEST COMMUNICATION. Of which there is far too little. The onus is on the NERC to come out of the shadows, not on you to quit shining the light into the darkness.

There lives will become easier to live when they have nothing to defend.

St

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

This is a curious business. The more one does research into y2k, the murkier picture. Post all the minutes you like.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

"Let me control the textbooks, and I will control Germany" --Adolph Hitler

While the context of the above quote is obviously different, the basic premise and peril is the same.

My short answer to you Bonnie is: DON'T YOU DARE STOP!!

If we allow those with a huge vested interest to be the only ones giving information on this, we deserve whatever suffering and failures we may get--even if we don't get any.

How dare anyone in the industry even ask us to "butt out" when it may be our very lives, and the lives of our friends, neighbors and loved ones that are at stake?

Also, I find the thought that they just take material like this off the Web, and make it private, equally monstrous.

As examples, what are we to think when someone like TVA makes their regular reports private just at the time that Y2k elevates truth- telling and full disclosure to an increased level of importance? What are we to think when our government's highest Y2k body makes their meetings "closed to the public"?

The mindset is so arrogant: "The children can't handle the truth; they'll misunderstand and misuse the information if we give it to them, but we'll protect them. Trust us."

Slaves we have become.

Here's my note to those in the industry who want to silence people like Bonnie Camp:

If you have nothing to hide, then you've made your own lives miserable by the many stupid errors you've made in reporting (or failing to report) on Y2k progress.

[Also realize that--in this case--your honest declarations are being made into a culture which has embraced lying as 'normal' and is now paying the price for its misguided "tolerance." The fact that 73% of Americans can say it doesn't matter whether the President lied to the Justice system, and to the American people, gives us reason to doubt virtually every statement we hear. If we tolerate lies by others, surely we will tolerate our own. We have made our own mess, and now must live with it. Character and integrity do matter, and we are all cripples because of our lack of outrage.]

If you in the industry do feel like you have a few little things to hide, but are hopeful that you can fix it all in time, you should remember that the decision to withhold potentially life-threatening information is not fairly yours to make. Those who fail to warn others of potential tragedy will ultimately be held accountable for every life lost. Give the warnings where they are needed; update the warnings or cancel them when the facts warrant it, but give us the REAL truth (the good, the bad and the ugly), and let us make up our own minds on potential crisis preparation.

Bonnie Camp has been a God-send to this subject. She has handled herself with incredible honesty and professionalism (even though she's not a professional in this subject). I commend her, and for the second time nominate her for a Congressional Medal of Honor for her tireless efforts on behalf of others. :-) (I should add Rick here too, for putting up with the guff he has to take from certain others, and for keeping this forum up and focused)

Keep up the good work. Keep ferreting out those "embarrassing truths" others don't want us to see.

***Rant Over***

Bob Allen

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

Bonnie, Bonnie, Bonnie--Don't you know that by reading these notices from the meetings, you're getting only a part of the true picture of the eu's readiness? And don't you know that by posting these that you're contributing to a public panic, which would certainly have more severe consequences than Y2K itself? You should stay where you belong, baking cookies in your (electric) oven, and don't worry your pretty little head about things you can't understand. Yeah, right. Go get 'em, and keep posting. Philippians 1:3 comes to mind: "Every time I think of you, I thank God for you."

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

Perhaps this is a bit redundant - but... Thank you, Bonnie, for all the work you do and for the clear concise and fair way you report it. I am in awe at the knowledge you have about the electric industry. (I wanna be like you when I grow up.;))

Keep posting!!! The public access is just that - PUBLIC ACCESS. It sounds to me that the truth is making some folks very uncomfortable. "Dang, they ain't all sheep - we got a coupla thinkers down there."

Keep up the great work!

Terri

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

The person that requested that you stop posting the PUBLIC information, because it is incomplete and/or misleading, should have sent his request to the originator of that information to get his/her act together. If the information is incorrect and/or misleading, it appears we are in more trouble than we thought. Good Luck and Keep on Posting, Bill

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

Bonnie, how dare they suggest that we could misinterprete their smoke and mirror show. maybe they should be more forthright with coming out with the truth then maybe there would not be room for conjecture.

last i heard this was still america, i guess the first ammendment doesent apply if it doesent go along with the corporate propaganda.

when the rollover occurs we shall see who was closer to the mark and who tried to hide the truth. YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!! thank you very much, al

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

Bonnie,

PLease keep on keeping on! They need to review their data for acuracy before releasing it to the public. I wonder why they can'nt seem to see that, maybe it has to do with taking responsibility.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

Bonnie, it sounds like a fair request, did the emailer indicate that he/she would provide you with further information regarding questions you had concerning the minutes? If not, then you could hardly be expected to oblige them.

If you are trying to get the facts about meeting minutes and you have a source to get clarifications, it would seem wise to exercise an available source. You would always be free to evaluate the response as well as the minutes.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

ACK!... Al stole my line!...YOU GO GIRL!

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

please keep posting, bonnie. based on your account, you've already made reasonable efforts to get more information from them, and they've ignored you at what turns out to be their own peril.

i wish i'd said 'you go, girl!' first :<(

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

Sounds to me like the industry is a little embarassed. After all, the issue of the NERC meeting minutes is now prominently addressed in Core's article on Wgard website.

I am certain this information would never have been voted into the minutes had the voters been paying attention to them. Which further begs the question, "What are they paying attention to?".

Bonnie's posts have been perhaps the fairest treatment this industry can expect anywhere. Interesting that they would try to put a cork in them.

Here's a tip for the NERC boys:

SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY.

Then you shouldn't have any problems.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

Bonnie, You've got it all wrong. Did you see the facial expressions and subtle non-verbal cues of the individual who e-mailed you. Why if you had he was of course trying to compliment you on a job well done. Oh sheeeez, a deconstructionist arguement on an electrical utility forum. To take this ballon out of the stratosphere what might be the valid issues raised here. 1) Public minutes shouldn't be debated without having been there in person, come on, that's why there's written language (What's that in the ROAD ahead? ... What's that in the road, A HEAD?). Would the e- mailer convey things better then the public minutes in his written style? Or if there are crucial chortles, guffaws, snickers or blank stares by all means let's hear, I mean, let's see something written about them. 2) The public minutes don't accurately reflect the content or tenor of the meeting. This is NERC's problem and would need to be brought up with them. 3) You are quoting out of context or drawing wrong inferences. Debating well-documented arguements on the basis of available public records is part of the function of a disussion forum. Maybe the real worry here is one shouldn't yell fire in a movie theatre without seeing the flames. I worry about this one, but if there is a smouldering thrash can next to the theatre drapes one is obligated to attempt to take action to try and prevent a calamity, even if one might be wrong. Keep up the great work.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

Just to be doubly clear, Bonnie, I do not think your posts are inflammatory, I find them concerning even alarming yes, but well- researched, well thought out and. Eh this whole thread is making me twitchy.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 1999

Yes, you go girl!

"SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY".

Yes! Er... sarcasm excluded, of course. :-)

I'll second P.D.'s comments.

There is something, though, to the objection that written statements, especially minutes and summaries, can be taken out of context and not properly understood. When writing an essay, I often put as much effort into specifying what I'm not saying as I do into articulating what I am saying.

I think this is especially important in Y2K writing because the issue is by and large, inexplicably, polarized into two extreme camps. If one argues that it's not going to be a bump in the road, then one frequently gets dumped into the Collapse of Civilization Crowd. And, conversely, if one argues that it's not going to be the Collapse of Civilization, then one gets lumped into the Bump in the Road Crowd. I don't subscribe to either extreme, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why so many people think you have to be one or the other.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 1999

Let's see if I have this straight. One should not comment on, or interpret any written information unless one was at the meeting. This would include the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I wasn't there at either meeting. By Jove, I think I've got it!

-- Anonymous, August 18, 1999

A heartfelt thank you for all the thoughtful remarks, kindness shown, and encouragement. I, too, wish getting clear-cut information was an easier job with much less complication involved. (And Factfinder - no information was offered, in answer to your question. Actually, why should there have been? If an individual can read this forum, they can post information, too, if they so desire.)

Lane wrote, "If one argues that it's not going to be a bump in the road, then one frequently gets dumped into the Collapse of Civilization Crowd. And, conversely, if one argues that it's not going to be the Collapse of Civilization, then one gets lumped into the Bump in the Road Crowd. I don't subscribe to either extreme, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why so many people think you have to be one or the other."

I can really identify with that. I AM weary of the constant labels when most individuals are just trying to find whatever data they can and get a handle on how any failures might impact them and their families, or their towns. For the record, I don't expect whole regions (grids) to go down in 2000, although I do allow for the possibility that it could happen. There have been large area outages which have happened before, stemming from just one single failure point. I don't buy into the concept that there would HAVE to be many multiple failures for a large scale outage to happen; I don't think history supports that. And whether you're talking about date failures, communications problems, supply lines or terrorism, etc., there is certainly a large increase of the risk factor in 2000.

However, I also don't buy into the idea that every utility (or even most) will fail or have problems, either. Like other infrastructure segments, there are some utilities which started out ahead of the pack and have stayed there, doing a great job. For good or ill, I also have seen references and clues over the last few months that other behind-the-pack utilities have tended to base their appraisals on those of the pack leaders. Phrases similar to "so and so says.." or "so and so indicates they found few problems.." show up in reports. Not -- WE have found...but THEY have found. I'm *hoping* this type of thing has been a legal maneuver, but since I'm a believer in the Bell Curve outlook, it's also possible that much is hanging on the good work of a few, since I don't think it's logical to assume that everyone has had the desire, time, money, staff or expertise for in-depth research into their own facility's systems.

Ten months ago, in a NERC meeting, "Bob Newell from Alliant presented his utilities approach to Y2K Contingency Planning. It starts with the assumption that one or more component Y2K failures are almost certain. There is no guarantee that remediated equipment will not fail." I'm with Alliant. There are no guarantees. This is the risk everyone -- large corporations, small business, governments and individuals, face.

I personally do not tend to look at the Y2K situation in a predictive manner, such as "This will happen," or "This won't happen". I think the problem of potential failures, where they might happen and what consequences they engender is beyond certain predicting. I look at RISK factors. There has been good news in the electric industry over the last few months. With the information available at the end of last year I wouldn't have bet a plug nickel my lights would stay on at rollover. But I do think the risks have decreased since that time. I just don't think the risks are low enough yet to be complacent about the issue, or to assume everything will be fine. My preparations lower my concerns about the risks to what I consider the most comfortable level I can achieve. That's what they're there for.

If we stopped putting everything in a Doomer or Polly category, and just concentrated on the increased risk the Year 2000 will bring in all infrastructure areas, then perhaps people could focus better on what they can do to address whatever risk level they see for themselves.

The way I look at the middle ground is that some town or city is going to lose its power. Some town or city will have the lights stay on. Some town or city will have water problems. Some town or city won't. Etc., etc. Are you _sure_ it won't be your town or city that doesn't have problems? Are you prepared for the risk that it _might_ be your town or city?

There is a vast landscape between Doom and Bump in the Road. You'll find me there, trying to mitigate risks, not worrying about what label is going to be right or wrong.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 1999

Bonnie, Thank you again for all the hard work you do on this forum. I enjoy reading your analysis, and can even tell when an article is yours just by the tone and rationality of your message. We all apprecaite all the hard work you have done. I would suggest that next time someone suggests that you should not post if you haven't been to the meeting that you asked them to include you. If you were there you would be able to give a proper presentation of what goes on. If the meeting were held in an area that is inconvenient for you to attend you could ask others on this forum to accept your invitation to give the forum the "correct" information. If they will not invite you to the meeting politely request that all members of the meeting send your their interpretations of the meeting and you can collate and evaluate THAT information in order to get the proper "flavour" of the meeting. That should satisfy anyones request for objectivity. If, on the other hand you are not invited to attend the meetings, just explain to them that without first hand knowledge, you must rely on official minutes, that heave been authorized by the parties involved and put on an offical agency web site. Of course politely explain that you are not able to help with the own agenda. Keep up the good work!!

-- Anonymous, August 18, 1999

I think this is very funny. I laughed and laughed. For the record, Bonnie, I think you are guilty of nothing. Feel free to keep posting whatever you want to post. If someone who was present at a meeting wants to set you straight, his (or her) privilege. To me, whether your commentary is accurate or not is beside the point. The really interesting issue is "Why did this person bother to write you?"

To put the best possible face on it, the individual was not acting on behalf of NERC, and he (or she) honestly believes Bonnie is a gloomy gus who makes the actual situation appear worse than it really is. That is my working assumption and it is probably the case.

Notice that I do not necessarily think that Bonnie is making the actual situation appear worse. It is more likely that the "groupthink" that goes on in meetings like this minimizes the actual situation. You can say pretty gloomy things but if the body language and the "tenor" does not match the words, the participants can be shocked by how an outsider reads the minutes. "I know it looks like we said that, but we really didn't mean it that way, honest!"

Anyway, back to the question... Why is a grandmother like Bonnie Camp a threat to NERC? I mean I could see it if Dan Rather or Larry King was into doing some real work on the issue and plastering Bonnie Camp- like opinions all over the tube. But we are talking about a little old lady who is posting on an obscure internet forum instead of knitting doilies and watching "Star Trek, the Next Generation", aren't we?

We all know that Bonnie is a granny who looks like Susan Sarandon on a bad day, and we all know that her every post makes the males among us drool. But NERC does not know that Bonnie isn't a doiley-knitter. Why do they care what Bonnie thinks or writes or posts in an obscure internet forum?

A few hundred internet messages among the billions that fly around every day? From a nobody? It is piffle. Something to be ignored. All writing to Bonnie Camp can do is make it worse, because little old ladies never let go of these kinds of things, that's for damn sure. I would file this whole thing under the category titled "Protesting too Much" and laugh.

Still, I'm pretty envious. Nobody has ever written to me and asked me to stop analysing the information that is in the public record. Apparently somebody can be terrified about little old ladies who look like Susan Sarandon, but nobody is afraid of a middle aged wuss who looks like Mel Gibson.

Hardly fair, I'd say.

Tom

-- Anonymous, August 18, 1999

Lest anyone think I'm ignoring this thread, I've exchanged some private emails on this topic with Bonnie. I can only add that I agree with the majority concensus:

You go, girl!

-- Anonymous, August 18, 1999

Lane wrote:

I think this is especially important in Y2K writing because the issue is by and large, inexplicably, polarized into two extreme camps. If one argues that it's not going to be a bump in the road, then one frequently gets dumped into the Collapse of Civilization Crowd. And, conversely, if one argues that it's not going to be the Collapse of Civilization, then one gets lumped into the Bump in the Road Crowd. I don't subscribe to either extreme, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why so many people think you have to be one or the other.

I do not think the polarization can be helped. I am very tired of it. It really does come down to a binary question.

Y2k will either be not (too) bad or it will be (some degree of) bad. Everything is going to be all right or it won't.

If you decide it won't be all right, the same argument that creates a recession creates TEOTWAWKI, too. One of Yardeni's critical assumptions is that most key systems will be repaired and will work, at least after a fashion. Take away that assumption and his position is nearly the same as Gary North's. You can ratchet your way to any position between Ed Yardeni and Gary North by assuming less remediation and more failures.

If you think it will be bad then you also think it might be a little worse and be very bad. If it might be very bad, then there is a chance it could be unimaginably bad.

Tom

-- Anonymous, August 18, 1999

After reading Tom Benjamins earlier post to this thread it just took me a while to settle down after some great bouts of laughter. (Not over the ideas, Tom, just the unique presentation.) And...

Ach, I can ear the ladies in me doily-knittin group now, after theyre done laughin about herself bein compared to that actress lady:

"Did ye read this one, Mary?" "Aye, and a silver tongued divil e is, too!"

D ye think e really looks like Mel Gibson, Mary?

If e does, now that would be the truly unfair thing, eh, Katie Agnes?

ows that, Mary?

Pass me that ball of thread, will ye? And be usin yer ead, now, Katie. Ow often do ye see God be handin out brains and humor wrrapped all about with diplomacy and puttin it in such a gorgeous package, now, eh?

Now, Mary, dont you be disturbin this vision Ive got in me ead with yere cussed re-al-ity. I think e does look like Mel Gibson!

Aye, Katherine Agnes, and next I spose yell be tellin me well be avin no trrouble a tall with the computin machines next year....

Ach, Mary, yere such a pain..

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

I am 65 and a granny, too. Does that mean I don't have any brains any more? Actually, I guess I never had any since I am a blonde; been the receiver of those jokes for years. Now you're telling me I have to put up with granny jokes? My delicate ego may not be able to handle this. Think I will go drink some Ensure. some Geritol, take a Centrum Silver Vit. Pill, and check my supply of Depends; then, again, I may have a glass of wine and go dancing at the local western dance hall.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

are you all going to let FactFinder stand in his dark lonesome corner by hisself and the EU industry voice from behind the curtains?

Did anybody get the chance to check out Jim Lord's new pages?

http://www.jimlord.to/ElectricityFailures.cfm

-- Anonymous, August 19, 1999

Bonnie:

I was at the August NERC Workshop and attended several of the breakout sessions. I do not see a problem with reposting these summaries. Unfortunately they are a power point summary of flip chart bullets and can't really capture the sincere discussions that took place in the workshops. These sessions ran concurrent so no one was in all of them.

Jim

-- Anonymous, August 22, 1999