A Rally for Your Water - Friday

Rally for affordably pure water - Friday, April 22 at 12:00 noon in front of City Hall.  Businesses and citizens alike call for Commissioners to "press pause" on Water Bureau spending for LT2 projects.

City Hall is at 1221 SW 4th Ave; between SW Jefferson and SW Madison on SW 4th

Portland Water Bureau still spending, now to disconnect Tabor

If you haven’t kept up with the flurry of reporting about our drinking water, the fate of our reservoirs, or questionable Water Bureau spending… visit the “Press Room” page of www.foresttofaucetpdx.blogspot.com for a fairly comprehensive list of links to the latest reads across media outlets.

The Community Ask
A broad range of community and business leaders are supporting the letter written by Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility (dated March 10, 2011, read it here) which requests Commissioners immediately intervene to delay LT2 projects. The list of signed supporters grows daily, and at this point includes organizations like the Portland Business Alliance, Widmer, Sierra Club, Oregon Small Business Association, and the Oregon League of Conservation Voters. Watch this list grow by clicking here.

As of yet, Council hasn’t taken any action to slow LT2 spending or to follow New York City’s lead and ask for a delay in deadlines.

Disconnecting Tabor
Despite the recent groundswell of community and business support for a time-out on LT2 projects, Portland Water Bureau is still spending money. Just a few weeks ago Water Bureau selected a contractor to disconnect the Mt. Tabor reservoirs -- a project estimated to cost $500,000 that will likely go before City Council sometime in the next six weeks. You’ll note that this half-a-million dollar project to shut off the Tabor reservoirs comes shortly on the heels of another contract wrapping up millions of dollars in reservoir “upgrades.” If you’d like to see a description of this disconnect project, read the Request For Proposal here (especially page 2 “Part I, Section A, 2. Background”).

A Rally – this coming Friday
The word is several stakeholder groups are calling for a rally in front of City Hall this Friday over lunch. Show up and inspire Commissioners to get moving on the Community Ask. April 22, 12 noon, outside City Hall at 1221 SW 4th Ave.

Water Rate Hearing – May 18, 10:15 am
A tentative date has been set for Council to hear the Water Bureau’s request for rate increases that will drive up your bill 85% over the next 5 years. Attendance is essential if you want Council to insist on something more sensible. Council Chambers in city hall. Check on the agenda as it develops here.

Oregonian Recognizes the Safety of our Water, and the Peril of Debt

In this Sunday's editorial piece, the Editorial Board at the Oregonian declared our drinking water safe and our financial health in peril.  Their willingness to finally recognize the data that verifies Portland really does serve clean water from Bull Run through both open and closed reservoirs, is in part inspired by a letter written by Dr. Thomas Ward (an infectious disease specialist at OHSU) to Commissioner Leonard and others this week.  Ward's letter is highly educational, and I can't recommend it enough: read the Ward Letter. 

The editorial also refers to the Portland Waters Users Coalition's opinion that Portland is barrelling towards a precipice.  (PWUC is a coalition of businesses which depend heavily on affordably clean water; you'll note that Widmer Brewing is a member).  A letter drafted this week by the Physicians for Social Responsibility (and signed on to by many groups, including Widmer, PWUC, Sierra Club, and Food &Water Watch) adamantly urged our Commissioners to take immediate action to stop LT2 contracts and seek a delay in the compliance timeline.

In the last few weeks, reporter Scott Learn has produced two substantive articles on our water system and how EPA's LT2 seems an inappropriate mandate here.  Read the first article here, and the second article here.  This issue is finally getting the attention it deserves.

What can be done? Stop the LT2 insanity.

Here is what Portland CAN do to save money on open reservoir projects they don’t need (read below how to stop the Bull Run treatment plant we don't need):

1) Don’t throw good money after bad = KILL THE CONTRACTS. When David Shaff says, “Hell will freeze over,” before the reservoirs will be saved, he’s employing a tactic to maintain your apathy. My house catches on fire and I don’t just walk away and say, oh well, it’s burned now. No, I employ the fire department to stop the damage. Even if the Water Bureau has blown through $200 million on tanks we don’t need, that’s still $500 million (with interest) less than what this will cost us if we just sit back and take it. This bureau has mastered justifying cost over-runs, stop the bleeding wherever you can and the savings will grow exponentially.

2) Look at Rochester (NY) – The good folks in Rochester, New York, are in the same “cover or treat or disconnect” dilemma as Portland is with regard to open reservoirs. They originally dismissed the idea of adding a micro-treatment facility right at the open reservoirs, but have since discovered it is possible to retrofit their existing small, historic structures to house the equipment they need to “treat” the finished water once again. This will allow them to keep their reservoirs open at a FRACTION of the cost. Compare their $25 million compliance plan to the $400 million compliance plan cooked up by our local contractors. And you can see why cozy relationships between PWB staff and outside contractors are sinking our ship. If you want, read some of Rochester’s plan: http://tinyurl.com/4r35uuh

The Portland Water Bureau only gave the micro-treatment facility idea the smallest of glances, which never got any more technical than “preliminary thinking” (PWB’s own word choice) -- thinking that was crafted by the contractors that want the lucrative buried tank projects.  When community members and large businesses recently requested a look see at PWB’s detailed analysis of the micro-treatment option, they were provided three non-technical paragraphs written several years ago (http://tinyurl.com/4szgfq9 ). That’s less analysis than I ran when I chose my hot water heater. (When a business coalition pushed for more details, they were informed they'd be charged for any information released -- none has been released yet). 

Call David Shaff and Randy Leonard and insist they complete a thorough technical/cost analysis of a micro-treatment option. Of course, if you ask the well paid PWB engineers to do it, they’ll sit on their hands and whine that it can’t be done. Here’s the trick, tell them they can hire one of their consulting friends to do the work. They always love funneling money out that revolving door into the hands of their future employers.

3) Consider all compliance options.  There are multiple ways to "comply" with a regulation set forth under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

• Seek a timeline extension, or "deferral."  The science has evolved significantly since this rule was written and in all likelihood the LT2 Rule will be substantially revised when the rule comes up for review in 2015.  The winners will be any water bureau that managed to hold on until the rewrite, and of course the big contractors that got their expensive projects in before they were clearly made unnecessary.  Portland Water Bureau set an aggressive timeline, and that was a disservice to our people.  New York City spent their time and money seeking more time and they won it... they don't have to build until 2028.
• Challenge EPA and seek a "variance."  Regulation issued under the Safe Drinking Water Act must by rights allow for a municipality to argue that they've found an alternative means of meeting the standards set forth in the regulation.  EPA asserts that they do not have to honor the "variance" rights of municipalities (set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act) because they have already determined that there is no other technology that works as well as a lid for protecting finished drinking water.  But, EPA has no science to support that finding.  And, all of the available science EPA can quote clearly shows covered water systems are subject to contamination.  Every major public health outbreak due to microbial contamination on record with EPA has happened in a covered system (like in Gideon Missouri), or in a system with sewage, industrial, and cattle runoff (like in Milwaukee, Wisconsin -- which, incidentally, also had an expensive treatment plant).  Lids are not the pinnacle technology, and they should not be treated as such.  Portland should be allowed to make its own argument for how it effectively manages contamination and serves clean water from Bull Run through both closed and open reservoirs.
• Evaluate an in town UV system designed to process the smaller flow rates exiting our open reservoirs.  This flow rate is smaller than that of Bull Run, so the plant should be smaller and cheaper.  You'll notice, in Rochester they've discovered they can create adequate UV facilities in their small historic structures already next to their open reservoirs.  Why can't Portland?
• Seek legislative relief in D.C.  The landscape has changed considerably in D.C. in recent months.
  Republicans on both the House and the Senate side have introduced extremist LT2 relief bills that endanger public health (HR 6393 and S 3038; also see the Cordova Times article).  Given the shifting balance of power, there may be an opportunity for moderate legislation to gain influence.  Only our delegation can read those tea leaves, however, they aren't likely to do anything on Portland's behalf as long as City Council sends mixed signals regarding this community's current commitment.  When I sat in on a meeting with community stakeholders and Senator Merkley in November,  Merkley noted a lack of leadership from Portland’s City Council regarding the reservoirs.  He wondered aloud why there seemed to be so little fight in this Council.  Senator Merkley reminded us that his federal efforts need to be in support of a meaningful effort at the local level.  

4) Demand a whole council approach. A wide swath of citizens and businesses alike have called for LT2 issues to be handled by the entire City Council, and not just left to Randy Leonard. As educated citizens highlight the important facts about LT2 projects, Commissioners have repeatedly deferred to Commissioner Leonard in the face of their own confusion. This is not acceptable; demand that every Commissioner be accountable for each LT2 related step made within our water system.

5) Hold David Shaff and Randy Leonard accountable. Don’t let unreliable labor keep the job.


Here is what Portland CAN do to save money on a treatment plant Bull Run doesn't need:

1) Contact every Oregon Health Authority Board member, which now holds jurisdication over the decision to either accept or deny our "variance" application regarding the plant at Bull Run.  Be relentless.  Make sure they understand the entire issue, and press them to side with public health and financial stability.  One verdict can insure the public's health AND secure our pocket books (how often does that happen?).

2) Demand a whole council approach. A wide swath of citizens and businesses alike have called for LT2 issues to be handled by the entire City Council, and not just left to Randy Leonard. As educated citizens highlight the important facts about LT2 projects, Commissioners have repeatedly deferred to Commissioner Leonard in the face of their own confusion. This is not acceptable; demand that every Commissioner be accountable for each LT2 related step made within our water system.

3) Hold David Shaff and Randy Leonard accountable. Don’t let unreliable labor keep the job.

The Proposal

November 2010

A request for voluntary and codified changes to the way Portland City offices treat records requests from Neighborhood Associations and other community-based groups.

We Request:
1) Commissioners voluntarily direct bureaus to allocate a portion of their 2010-11 budgets to providing free-of-charge access for document requests supported by Portland’s Neighborhood Associations or other community-based, non-profit organizations.

2) Commissioners voluntarily direct all City offices and bureaus to accept a default working principle of “digitize and post publicly” for work products moving forward. Direct offices to innovate fast and affordable information sharing methods that reduce paper consumption, with the goal of making it simple for the public to stay informed without formal information requests. Direct offices to accept and respond to regular citizen input (by phone, email, or online form) about the specific information the public deems valuable and would like to find shared online by default.

3) Craft and execute an adjustment to the City’s Public Access to Records policy (BCP-ADM-8.03) to codify no-charge access to information requests supported by Portland’s Neighborhood Associations or other community-based organizations.

Discussion of Financial Impact
The funds required to fulfill public records requests from community-based organizations and Neighborhood Associations should represent a relatively small portion of a bureau’s “public involvement” budget. As an example, consider the Portland Water Bureau public records requests for a one year period in comparison to its public involvement budget for a one year period. Recently, the Portland Water Bureau conducted a “snapshot” study of ALL public records requests (not just those from community groups, but all requests) at their bureau for fiscal year 2008-2009. Including requests for correspondence, email communication, publications, maps, billings, customer account water consumption data, and financial documents the bureau amassed $37,000 in that one year period (described as “staff time” and “resources”). This bureau’s public involvement budget was listed as $614,759 for the one year period of FY 2009-10. All requests to this bureau represent just 6% of their “public involvement” budget, and less than 1/16th of 1% of their total budget for the year (total PWB budget for FY 2009-10 was over $148 million).

Increasing digital access will reduce the impact of formal records requests, both by reducing the number filed and by reducing the time required to fill each request. Requiring bureaus to offer free access to certain citizen groups, minimally impacts bureau budgets and will likely inspire City offices to quickly innovate less resource consuming ways to publish public information.

Why this proposal benefits Portlanders
Information is essential for an involved and engaged public. Portlanders value civic engagement, and information fosters the vibrant civic life that characterizes our city. Engaged citizens provide invaluable support to city government initiatives. In 2009 alone, Solarize Portland, the SE Tool Library, and massive neighborhood clean-up events exemplified how engaged citizens can generate incredible support for government initiatives, amplifying the effectiveness of those initiatives at little or no-cost to government. An informed citizenry is a smart investment in a volunteer-labor force that returns tangible dividends.

But who decides what information interests the public? Publishing decisions are usually made by the bureaucracies generating the information. It’s important to remember that in delegating authority, the citizens of Portland do not give their public servants the right to decide what is and what isn’t good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. Citizens fund the staff, the computer and the overhead that go into creating our public records. At the heart of this proposal is the belief that, when practicable, citizens should be given free-of-charge access to the final product of work they’ve already funded.

The supporters of this proposal believe the fee structure currently employed in City Policy is restricting the citizenry’s access to information. A 2007 study of government transparency in the 50 states gave Oregon an “F.” As stated in Binding City Policy 8.03, “the City of Portland prides itself in citizen access to City records, which is a fundamental component of democracy.” As such, we request that the City continues to evolve the policy in reaction to citizen input.

This year, Oregon’s Attorney General surveyed sunshine laws around the country, revealing a number of practices that seem to foster information access better than our local policies. For example, at least 11 states limit document request fees by excluding the cost of staff time, such that inspecting records is generally free (this is true in cities like Seattle and Austin). Contrast this with Portland’s policy, which allowed a neighborhood volunteer to be charged $57 for the time it took her to read a document while sitting in a bureau office. Many states that permit the inclusion of staff time do so only after a certain threshold -- in Austin, Texas, for example, a requestor does not pay for labor on requests requiring less than 50 copies. Several states set a flat hourly rate for all staff/labor charges, usually between $10 and $15 dollars. Contrast that with Portland’s staff time charges which are laboriously calculated for each City employee involved in a request, resulting in staff charges that run the gamut from $20 to almost $200 an hour (for upper level employees).

Meeting the Public Interest Test
According to the Oregon Attorney General’s Manual on Public Records, a “matter or action is commonly understood to be 'in the public interest' when it affects the community or society as a whole, in contrast to a concern or interest of a private individual or entity." In applying the public interest test, custodians are directed to decide if the information requested is a personal matter of interest solely to the party requesting it, or if the subject involves public business of interest to the broader community.

Community-based, non-profit organizations and Neighborhood Associations can effectively telegraph true citizen-interest from the community to the government. Community-based organizations are often formed around a very current issue of great community concern. Neighborhood Associations are uniquely integral to the proper functioning of this city. As active participants in land development processes, including long-range city planning and code enforcement, they keep the land’s use grounded in the will of the citizenry. Volunteers from NA’s and other community organizations carry community issues down to city hall and meet face to face with Commissioners and decision makers, keeping them current and informed with a wide variety of perspectives. Made-up of citizens themselves, these organizations can act as a first-level filter on defining “in the public interest” from the community’s perspective.

Providing access to the information communities deem valuable without the limiting burden of onerous fees is a reasonable investment of public funds. Community-based, non-profit organizations and Neighborhood Associations can provide a means by which information can flow from government to citizens, according to the values shared by both government and citizen (those shared values being free access to public information without over burdening either party with unreasonable associated costs). When a request is backed by a community organization or a Neighborhood Association, and the information is intended to be shared with the community (i.e. the members of that community-based organization), that information should be regarded as meeting the standard of “in the public interest”.

Summary
Clearly, opportunity exists for Portland to improve its public records policy. The supporters of this proposal seek to start with just one change, that declares the city’s commitment to transparency and an engaged citizenry by providing free-of-charge access to public records when the request represents a plurality of public will. We seek to clarify for City document-custodians that requests supported by Neighborhood Associations and other community-based organizations inherently meet the Public Interest Test, and therefore will be offered codified relief from public records access fees. We believe this specific policy change will simplify request fulfillment for City employees, it will help keep Portland’s government transparent, and it will inspire the City to innovate information access so as to reduce waste and the need for formal requests.

FAQs

Won’t it be expensive and time consuming for city employees to digitize their work?
Just about everything produced in today’s workplace is done so on a computer, so the data originates in a digital form. City employees can simply save or print to “PDF” any document the public requests.

Digitizing older work products is an entirely separate issue requiring more resources. However, we have to jump in at some point and make it the standard to print to PDF; the longer we wait the more catch-up we have to do. These issues, digitizing as you work vs. catching-up digital access for older documents should not be confused, as one is sometimes used as an excuse to avoid launching the other.

Doesn’t this amount to special treatment for one group?
The public interest test inherently grants government the opportunity to treat entities differently. The factors to be weighed in this test include not just an analysis of the material requested, but an analysis of the requestor. For instance, whether they have the ability to disseminate the information (news organizations are allowed to be treated differently under this analysis).

The law provides equal access for all and current policy meets the law. Dropping the fee for one party doesn’t in any way further restrict another party’s access. Every citizen in Portland has access to a Neighborhood Association from which he/she can seek support for a document request. This allowance will benefit the broader community, not just one special interest.

Endnotes.....
*1 - “Results and Criteria of BGA/NFOIC survey,” available at http://www.nfoic.org/uploads/results1.pdf
*2 - Attorney General’s Government Transparency Report, October 2010