How a Democracy Allocates Risk

Last evening, a few of us got a stark lesson in how our democratic institutions deal with risk to the public. In this instance, the subject was the risk posed by the fuel pipeline adjacent to SJHHS.

A workshop was scheduled for 5 PM, a very inconvenient time for most people. Predictably, the turnout was light -- about a dozen members of the public were on hand, along with two dozen district staff, and the district Trustees.

From the outset, this workshop was rigged by Superintendent and staff to produce the desired outcome: approval of their new Pipeline Safety Hazard Assessment. The technique used to obtain this approval was venerable and time-honored, "Keep asking until you get the desired answer."

No new information has become available since the evening two weeks ago when these same Trustees refused to approve the Assessment. Everyone is aware that a technical disagreement exists between CUSD's expert, Dr. Fitzgerald, and another expert, Richard Kuprewicz, yet no effort was made to involve Kuprewicz or any other expert in the workshop.

The resulting discussion was meaningless. There was one expert in the room, a technical dispute, and no way to resolve it since there was nobody qualified to question the one expert.

For my part, I urged the Trustees to consider why they were being asked for their approval. Mr. Carter earlier extorted the Trustees when he stated that CDE would "sooner or later" demand that CUSD return the state money expended to construct SJHHS unless approval was forthcoming. I suggested that if the Trustees were satisfied with Dr. Fitzgerald's Assessment despite the existing technical dispute, they should vote to approve it. On the other hand, if they felt the need to be better informed, they were obligated to demand additional information. I suggested peer review of the report would be one way of obtaining more information.

In his own way, Mr. Carter urged the Trustees to approve the Assessment because he wanted it resolved "before school opened" on September 2. In the same breath, he admitted that issues related to EMF and land ownership would prevent re-opening of the affected athletic field at the school.

A number of parents urged the Trustees to "move on", stating that they were "satisfied" with the report.

Finally, CUSD's attorney Mr. Bergman, provided the Trustees with an incomplete and misleading description of their personal legal obligation and potential liability under the Government Code. He omitted the obligation to make reasonably informed decisions, something that might be questioned under these circumstances.

Without resolving the technical dispute, without discussion of the recent revisions in the Assessment, and without consideration of a single mitigation strategy, this workshop set the stage for the eventual approval of the Assessment later in the evening.

Does the fuel pipeline pose a risk to SJHHS?

In my opinion, we will never know the answer to this question. Trustees were persuaded to certify the safety of the school on the basis of one Assessment. That Assessment concludes that there was "no risk", but of course, this conclusion is based on certain assumptions. Did anyone seriously challenge these assumptions? Yes, they were seriously challenged but Trustees chose to pay no attention.

After formally approving the Assessment, a couple of Trustees did express the desire to obtain a peer review of Dr. Fitzgerald's work. But one Trustee, Ms. Bryson, commented that such a review would be "very costly", though she had no basis for making the statement.

So in the end, we conclude that democracy allocates risk to the public on the basis of expedience and cost. Those of us who thought otherwise were wasting our time.