« SPAMMED!!!! 2 For 1 Friday | Main | A Little Target Practice »
December 01, 2007
Coziness A Concern
 |
| Image: CSU Chico's budget proposal for $30,000 greenhouse
gas emissions study to be completed by students. The City Council recently approved spending $30,000 to fund a greenhouse gas emissions study. The request for funding came from the Sustainability Task Force, a group which I had been a member of. I do support the effort to create this "database" of gas emissions. Not because I believe that global warming will end life on earth, but because our last Mayor Scott Gruendl signed an agreement, and he should either stick to it or get out of it. This study is necessary to do the former, which is what the Council wants to do. I'm told that initial estimates for the study ranged from $25,000 to $90,000. Scott McNall, CSU Chico's Sustainability Overlord pushed for the use of a software program called ICLEI to create the database. Other college employed task force members pushed for it as well. About a third of the task force is employed by the university, including Vice Mayor Schwab. It was sometimes portrayed as a magical spreadsheet where data goes in and answers come out. Working as an engineer I know nothing complicated is that simple. What data goes in will determine if the software produces anything meaningful. After I left the task force it was decided that using interns from CSU Chico to complete the study was an option. The Council approved a $30,000 payment to CSU Chico on 11/06/07. The submitted budget is shown above (see CSUC's proposal here, page 10). It would seem worthwhile to review possible shortcomings associated with this decision. Prior to me leaving the task force I argued that using college interns to complete a study was inappropriate. One member of the task force stated that if we didn't reduce greenhouse gas emissions 85% by 2050 we'd all be dead. If a person truly believed that this study would influence life or death decisions wouldn't you want to pay professionals to do it? Would you put your life in the hands of $10/hour interns? I guess for some people the answer is yes. Secondly, no real budget ends with exactly round numbers. This is not that big of a deal, but it shows me that the proposal isn't an actual cost analysis, but an estimate or a targeted proposal. Let's also consider the fact that these students are paying CSU Chico to get an education. And now taxpayers are going to pay the students $20,000+ to further the education they're attending school for. And we'll pay the university $10,000 to train faculty and use facilities the students already paid to have access to (tuition). The project manager for this study, a graduate student, has minimal experience doing this work. He completed a study for CSU Chico and one for Fort Bragg. But does he have experience managing large groups of people and meeting deadlines? Students are not known for completing work in a timely manner, and don't have experience producing valuable work product. They are known for feeling like they already know everything. What happens if the study is flawed? Who's going to make sure it isn't? Is there errors and omissions insurance backing the producers of this information? Thirdly, I've always felt that our city staff rely on consultants too much. They throw money at consultants, whose work is rarely accepted, and then everyone runs away from decision making (look for this strategy on the budget problem). Now that we're pulling lint from our financial pockets I have to wonder if CSU Chico will be stepping in as our cheap consultant across the street. On visiting Alan Gair's www.treeaction.org web site I ran across this on the home page ("Tree Action" is seeking to enhance the local tree protection ordinance). At the Internal Affairs committee on Tuesday 10/09/07, TreeAction's proposed amendments to the City tree ordinance were presented. In spite of an initial somewhat lukewarm reaction from city staff -- "we haven't the time, the money, etc." -- the meeting became very positive. The Urban Forester, Denice Britton, and councilors Tom Nickell and Ann Schwab embraced many of our proposals and instructed staff to create an ad hoc committee to study the recommendations and produce ideas for adoption and consideration by the full council. This group to be composed of members of the public, Planning and General Services staff and members of the planning and parks commissions. The idea of getting a University and city iTree software-based project underway, in order to create a baseline analysis of the urban forest, is being considered by Deputy Mayor Ann Schwab, in her role as head of the Mayor's Sustainability Task Force, and Scott McNall, who leads the impressive CSU sustainability activities. This would lead to a practical and dollar-based evaluation of the contribution that augmenting and managing our tree cover would make to the quality of our city life. It would also justify expenditure on these tasks and possibly create a practical academic for-credit project for students. Are we seeing a trend develop? While I can't disagree with the benefit these for-credit projects provide to students, I can question the benefit they provide to the taxpayer. How is it that we pay our city employees handsomely and yet there is still a need to farm out $10/hour work to the University in order to define our public policy? And if the work isn't important enough to us to hire professionals, and our high paid city staff don't feel they should make time for it, do we really need to have it done? This relationship between activists, the university, and city officials seems like it might be getting too cozy. And now dollars are starting to flow between the groups. |
| Astrophotography Exhibit: The exhibit is this afternoon from 4PM to 8PM. Don't miss it? |
 |
 |
CI Challenge: Can you guess what it is? Winner: Anthony Watts, see comments below for the answer. |
Posted by Lon at December 1, 2007 09:04 AM
Comments
Lon, your assessment of working with students is dead on target. I know this because I have worked with them myself and because I was one once upon a time. Concerning City practices of spending money on consultants, then throwing out the consultants and their results is also correct.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the City working with the university or with activists as long as citizens are getting bang for their bucks but it certainly seems that we often do not.
Posted by: Shatzi at December 1, 2007 05:06 PM
Lon I agree with you on the use of students, and I feel that the McNall-Schwabb-Stemen-Cooper-Carter circle of friends is just a little too cozy for my tastes when public money is involved.
It may all be for naught anyway. USA reduced the total GHG output in 2006 by 1.5%, even without signing Kyoto. See the details on my blog at:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/a-good-year-for-co2-in-2006/
And the CIC is the logo/sign for the "Cozy Diner" on Mangrove
Posted by: Anthony at December 1, 2007 07:48 PM
Shatzi,
I've been aware of the attempt to use students for the greenhouse gas study for quite a while. A point I made while on that Task Force was simply that you get what you pay for. But other than that I wasn't too bothered.
Then I read that the some of the same people may be trying to set up a student project for another committee. Maybe it's the best deal around and the work product will be excellent. But when you've got people employed by the university involved in shunting paying jobs to that organization I think people should keep an eye on the process.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at December 1, 2007 08:27 PM
Anthony,
That's interesting about CO2 reductions for 2006. I wonder what the margin of error is. How could they possibly have measured all of the CO2 in the US if Chico's study isn't done yet? They must have some mathletes working on it. Possibly even a graduate student or two.
Any group of people working for the same company would raise eyebrows if they were trying to direct city funded projects to that company. I don't see why the university should be treated any different than a private company.
I think the university people that promoted the greenhouse gas study as a project took a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. I don't think it was a back-room deal or a hard sell. But the city can hardly afford to keep funding educational projects for university students.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at December 1, 2007 08:55 PM