Subject: U.S. Navy Report Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:46:39 -0400 From: Jason McNamara To: COMM_Y2K@WWW.GSA.GOV

To all:

The note below is a direct response from John Koskinen, and includes an attachment of the last report which was on the USN website. I hope this sets the record straight. This will be my last message on or discussion of this subject.

Thank You,

Jason McNamara

______________________________________________________________________ >From John Koskinen, Chair, President's Council on Y2K Conversion:

The short of the story is that the information Jim Lord has released today with great fanfare was on a web site accessible by the public until August 10. (It was actually brought to my attention by a member of the public who had some questions about it.) So there hasn't been any suppression of disturbing evidence. Throughout the earlier months, updates were regularly sent throughout the Navy which was probably what Mr. Lord's "June report" was. The report went up on the web at the request of a Navy workshop since many fleet users wanted to facilitate access to the most current data. (The document was taken down so that it could be updated and the information more clearly explained since people found it hard to understand.)

Second, the ratings were based on anecdotal information that was updated over time. Most significantly, which Mr. Lord does not note and may not have known (although he made no inquiries that I know of ) the instructions were to put a "3" (risk of failure) as the default if information was not available. Earlier this year when base commanders and others were trying to determine the status of local infrastructures here and around the world there wasn't much information available, which is why there were so many "3"s.

The lack of local information was one of the reasons we launched our "Community Conversations" initiative in May and why DoD has a related initiative they have asked all their base commanders to lead in their local communities, either by supporting the community's own conversation or helping to organize one in the absence of any other facilitators.

Third, the people the leadership at DoD and the services care most about are their troops. The advice, which Mr. Lord finds inconsistent, which was sent to the troops by the Secretary of the Navy -- which is anything but alarmist -- reflects the low level of risks from Y2K as seen by the department leadership. (But they did recommend personal preparedness and continue to do so.)

Finally, in response to requests, here is the report as it was last available to the public on August 10. While it is much less exciting than the "June report" cited by Mr. Lord, it should still be borne in mind that the scoring was:

0 = not likely to occur 1 = occurrence improbable 2 = occurrence probable 3 = occurrence is likely to occur OR no information

As we move through the fall, we have enough interesting and important matters to pursue that we don't have to also be making mountains out of public molehills. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would send this memo along to all those you sent your earlier message.

Many thanks. I look forward to seeing you again soon.

-- reading (watching@listening.reallyhard), August 20, 1999

Answers

The spinning continues. Must have been a busy day at the White House.

After reading the Navy report on Lord's site I checked my local water/sewer folks (http://themdc.com) for the first time and their serious situation became very clear.

The report, as presented by Lord, said that they would not be ready. I can only conclude after reading their site that they will not be ready.

So while I cannot vouch for the entire report (obviously) I can say that for our are the report was dead on the mark.

Spin away. I am referring every local I know to the MDC site and letting them draw their own conclusions. If they choose not to act on it I have a clear conscience.

Jim Lord has done a great public service.

-- cgbgjr (cgbgjr@webtv.net), August 20, 1999.

LIAR LIAR LIAR. you know it is serious when john koskinen does immediate control. remember the big sewerage spill--he had that story turned around within a day or so and he personally was at the news conference regarding "no more testing until everyone knows it is being done."

-- tt (cuddluppy@iamsickofthis.com), August 20, 1999.

This looks like almost exactly the same this that Steve Davis posted yesterday. Except for the first paragraph, which sounds like a huge crock of B.S. Brought to his attention by a member of the public? Yea, and that's when he said "What the hell is that doing up there?? Get that down!!"

I simply cannot imagine that the Navy would use a system like this: "3 = occurrence is likely to occur OR no information" Is it really so difficult to write a 4 for no information? I mean really, if they have no information, don't they want to KNOW that they have no information?

This really stinks...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), August 20, 1999.

Excellent point about the '4' pshannon; you took the words right out of my mouth (or off my fingers?).....

-- Jim (x@x.x), August 20, 1999.

I've said it before (and was labeled a slanderer by PNG) and I'll say it again: John Koskinen is to this adminstration as Joseph Goebbels was to the Third Reich. The propaganda machine rolls on...

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

*Sigh*

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

Gawd, how many flunkies does Koskinen have, anyway? This is nearly word-for-word what yesterday's flunky told us.

To all of them, including Mr. K: LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 20, 1999.

I give the Navy much credit for stepping forward with regard to y2k. Hopefully they will continue to speak out.

I still believe that if y2k results in serious consequences, folks like John Koskinen and associates should be tried in a court of law and if found guilty of deceiving the American people sentenced accordingly.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 20, 1999.

The Military using logic is not the same thing as "military logic", PShannon. It's their nature for military assessments to presume the worst for lack of information. I'm not saying it's right, am just saying it's their way.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), August 20, 1999.

Just to point out some curious inconsistencies from Jason McNamara (on behalf of John Koskinen)...

...the information Jim Lord has released today with great fanfare was on a web site accessible by the public until August 10.

So, are we to infer that IF there is Y2K information, anywhere, on a dot mil or dot gov web-site, that the public is then considered INFORMED? See this statement...

So there hasn't been any suppression of disturbing evidence.

Okay. They ARE NOT hiding it. Its just buried.

What does that say? It says, our government Y2K Czar (et. al.) has his groups backside covered... because the disturbing evidence IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. He just doesnt highlight the information. What really constitutes suppression?

Figure it out for yourselves.

Earlier this year when base commanders and others were trying to determine the status of local infrastructures here and around the world there wasn't much information available...

We have had the same data collection or inference problems too... since last year.

And yet, earlier this year the government Y2K info machine was saying... be happy... no problem or... the infamous Koskinen line... No one knows. Or even... "It's all local."

So, what DO WE KNOW?

We can see that we dont and wont know and neither will Koskinen (et. al.) BUT they will keep saying its a 3-Day Winter Storm or 3 to 7-Day Hurricane. Thats it!

I ask... HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT? Especially when no one knows?

The Y2K disconnect is alive and real and living in Washington D.C. ... not to mention the rest of the world.

Just BE PREPARED for anything... locally. Because it certainly looks like thats what well get. What we wont get, is truth. (But then, its likely, neither will Koskinen, from his sources).

*Major Sigh*

Diane

(Oh, and... Go Navy!)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

pshannon - good point.

Can anyone provide any report from any of the armed forces, or from anywhere in government, in which the worst-case choice was also the in-response choice? Is there ANY reason to think that this is normal procedure?

-- bw (home@puget.sound), August 20, 1999.

Considewring the impact of failures, the worst case would be MY default choice. Course then again I'm considered an alarmist by LOTS of people who have NO access to this board.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 20, 1999.

Think of John Koskinen as the Doorman of Oz:

Two Oz Women

Dorothy? Who's Dorothy? The Wizard will explain it!

Man of Oz

To the Wizard! To the Wizard!

Dorothy

Whatever shall we do?

Scarecrow

Well, we'd better hurry if we're going to see the Wizard!

Doorman

Here - here! Everything is all right. Stop that now - just - Every - it's all right! Everything is all right! The Great and Powerful Oz has got matters well in hand - I hope - and so you can all go home! And there's nothing to worry about. Get out of here now - go on! Go on home, and I - I - Go home.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 20, 1999.

I don't recall his exact words, but several months ago Koskinen stated that one of his missions was to give the American public all of the information that his committee had at its disposal. It is apparent from his statement that he was aware of this report for at least 10 days, yet he chose to say nothing about it until Lord did.

Makes me wonder what other information he's sitting on.... I have never been fond of the man. Now, I truly despise him.

-- regular (zzz@z.z), August 20, 1999.

I can only relate what happened in my time frame in the Air Force (1959-1980). We always considered it prudent where national survival was at stake to assume the worst set of circumstances when no facts were available. I still consider that to be the best policy. And from another thread today the Navy is less likely to be politically correct than the other services thank god!

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

"The advice, which Mr. Lord finds inconsistent, which was sent to the troops by the Secretary of the Navy -- which is anything but alarmist -- reflects the low level of risks from Y2K as seen by the department leadership. (But they did recommend personal preparedness and continue to do so.)"

Uh lets see. So what he is saying here is "Yer on yer own bunkie."

We don't feel the need to warn or prepare the populous but PERSONAL PREPAREDNESS is recommended.

I wonder if it hurts to talk from both sides of your mouth like that.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 20, 1999.

Nabi -- FWIW, K. is better looking than Goebbels.

When do the Nuremberg protocols relating to official behavior become applicable?

A transcript of the Nuremburg trial proceedings is on line (the Avalon Project at the Yale Law School). Justice Jackson of the United States presided. His opening statement commences at the end of page 97 of the transcript. (Scroll down to '98'.)

It's worth reading.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 20, 1999.

Tom,

Neither one of them would win any beauty contests:-). These men and women who fancy themselves as "our leaders" MUST be held accountable should the situation turn out worse than they've acknowledged. Unfortunately, they must expect that they will not be. That worries me...

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

0 = not likely to occur 1 = occurrence improbable 2 = occurrence probable 3 = occurrence is likely to occur OR no information

This does not jive with the categories presented as table headings, which were: 1) Partial failure is probable. 2) Partial failure is likely. 3) Total failure is likely.

It appears to me as though the word "occurrence" has been substituted because the words "total failure" are too panic inducing. This seems to have been a hasty edit, resulting in a category with a redundancy: "Occurance is likely to occur." Level #1 was redefined from "probable" to "improbable." I believe it is incumbant upon Mr. Koskinen to produce documentation showing how his category definitions are the actual ones that were used, rather than the ones that appear in the report itself. Does anyone have a copy of the instructions that were issued with this survey?

As for the Navy assuming the worst when no co-operation if forthcoming from the infrastructure businesses on which they depend, is this wrong? Since the administration is apparently using a different method, does this mean that the 99% compliance figures being reported to the public include a lot of refusals to answer.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 20, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Whoops, I forgot: This will be my last message on or discussion of this subject. Yeah... he's just talked it to death, hasn't he?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 20, 1999.