The Information Auditor

Long time, no blog.... Sorry, i took a long time off. Robert B. Cialdini's Influence, Science and Practice could make a good reference for information management professionals who want to know more about how social influece works in our culture. After reading it, it reminded me of a line from Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court: “We speak of nature; it is folly; there is no such thing as nature; what we call by that misleading name is merely heredity and training.”

Cialdini's unscrupulous compliance professional is his technical term for the social engineer, which is itself a kind term for the con artist. In the fifth edition of his book Influence, Science and Practice , he describes how we are vulnerable to a kind of social ju-jitsu in which such professionals drive us into making decisions we might not otherwise do upon careful, critical reflection. Compliance professionals use context, sophisticated techniques, and time pressure to trigger and manipulate our built-in automatic compliance responses. Based on knowledgeable use of context, verbal and non-verbal cues they exploit our reliance on decision making shortcuts in order to comply with, please, or trust authority, blend with peers, or become obligated to someone for some kind of exchange in the future. He calls these triggers “fixed action patterns” and assigns the mnemonic of click-whirr –the sound of our little compliance engine at work without our control.

The Reciprocation Pattern fires off when a social courtesy or favor obligates a recipient to respond in kind. The Commitment and Consistency Principle can occur if a person makes a public claim about themselves as that is often followed with pressure to maintain such a self image (even if it is not advantageous to that person). Social Proof (something Tom Sawyer surely understood with his famous fence episode), is essentially the familiar notion of peer pressure in which a behavior is seen as acceptable as long as others do it. The I Like You Principle is a composite of Reciprocation and Social Proof along with fawning compliments buttered liberally on the victim. The Association Principle is a favorite in advertising as it attributes a favored thing with something else (making that thing more appealing). The Authority Principle refers to our trigger to obey (and fear?) and trust authority automatically (and we all know that ‘If an expert says it, it must be trustworthy’). And then the Scarcity Principle exploits our insistence to see something as more valuable if there is less of it available.

The Scarcity Principle poses an interesting facet to the problem of open government information policies at the Federal level. If people are given to perceive some kind of specialized government information is not available, such as government owned scientific studies and reports, (as in this case of my project), an immediate reaction may be that such information is far more valuable than it really is.

Technorati Tags:
advocacy,information audit, knowledge management, knowledge-management, information management, software engineering, information technology, information-technology, Internet, e-government, egov, Government IT.

Democracy is a process that citizens must learn and exercise in our regulatory republic (we live in a country of rules, regulations, and laws more so than in a 'democracy'). We cannot take for granted that democracy is a condition of life made, or even guaranteed, by our government. Democracy is not made by, in, or with our government and our government is not the means through which acts of democracy are made. Ultimately, it is not government's responsibility to protect it for us; it is our responsibility. Democracy is not an ideal to reach, not a sacred word enshrined in our Founding documents (the word does not even appear in our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights). Democracy is a verb and it means engagement, activism, and persistence whenever political or social change is necessary. Democracy means bringing together like-minds for political and social change through legal means. The framework for doing democracy is first to see that our political lives are bounded by rules and regulations, more so than whomever is merely elected to office; and second, we must find ways to affect change directly on the authorization environments responsible for those rules and regulations.

As the presidential election season grinds on, and we hear our peers complaining about one candidate’s ideas about taxes and another’s about Iraq, remember that local governing bodies impact our lives far more than any president. For example, county governments, as in the case of King County and its conflict with Maple Valley, have a huge impact on the citizens more so than whomever becomes President --or even the governor --a political reality ignored by many us.

I see democracy as a dynamic social system driven by public reaction to rules, regulations, and laws. To me the implication of this is that voting is a very small part of being a responsible citizen involved in our common governance. So, to affect social and political change, we must do more than just pay attention to or even vote in presidential elections. Doing democracy is about taking action for change and it can be expressed in many ways: consider those non-profits that take on social problems, these are great examples of doing democracy (and not just quaint ideas of social activism or charity).

Technorati Tags:
maple valley, suburbs, community development, urban planning,
information audit, knowledge management, knowledge-management, information management, software engineering, information technology, information-technology, Internet, e-government, egov, Government IT.

A quote from James Howard Kunstler's Home from Nowhere:

Most urban areas “…suffer from density deficits. There are not enough people living, or business activities, at the core to maintain the synergies necessary for civic light…. The New Urbanism calls for higher density….. The New Urbanism models…the traditional American Town” (113).

Kunstler’s nuanced and vitriolic essay searches for an escape from soul-killing, suburban mediocrity. His pain is reminiscent of the 1960 Twilight Zone episode “A Stop at Willoughby”, where a desperate 38 year old Gart Williams visits a serene, idyllic small town of Willoughby where ‘a man can slow down to walk and live his life full measure’. Unfortunately, Willoughby was merely a dream and Gart leapt from his commuter train to his death in search of that richer civic life. Do Willoughbys make people happy? Kunstler thinks so; his thesis depends on the idea of environmental determinism in which the places we live shape our well-being. Thus, living in my suburban city, my spiritual life is deprived because I can’t walk down shady lane in a faux village of mixed-use buildings to a yarn shop. I can safely refute his diagnosis of my soul’s welfare.

Although he appears to be a John the Baptist calling out the sinners to redemption, his criticism of sprawl and alienation by urbanization is not new. It can easily be traced back to the late 1800’s and shows up in neighborhood designs in the 1920’s. He relies on superficial stereotypes and vitriol that becomes shrill and annoying and altogether shows his mastery of shallow reasoning and ignorance of history. He should know suburban sprawl developments did not originate with the devil nor funded by the First National Bank of the Antichrist. And that the suburb and its promise of single-family home ownership became a kind of birthright to white Americans may have had less to do with the advent of the automobile than the improvements in and lowered costs for building materials and technologies to deliver on that demand.

Density is as much a solution in some cases as it is a potential problem in others. That neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population is laudable but hardly realistic everywhere; such will appeal to some but not all people, leaving community development planners struggling to find a balance through experimentation. The author would better serve us with more humility, acknowledging he does not have the answers.

Does New Urbanism hope for idyllic urban lifestyles that fits our fantasies of today, ignoring the potential negative effects of such pursuits on development in the future?

What should we reasonably expect from this notion of the Public Realm (36)? Do all people need civic connection; or, is that yet a choice that people need to make on their own (and that’s OK)?

How useful is this book in influencing dialog with people with opposing views? Or, is it better suited for ammunition of tired, predictable critiques of the shortcomings of suburban life?

Technorati Tags:
maple valley, suburbs, community development, urban planning,
information audit, knowledge management, knowledge-management, information management, software engineering, information technology, information-technology, Internet, e-government, egov, Government IT.

Some Conclusions:

The City acted with appropriate and effective ways to get people involved. Although getting information on or access to any minutes of any negotiations between itself and the County are not readily available, or known. The City used council meetings, interviews in newspapers, special meetings and its website effectively to create interest among the public from the beginning of the controversy (for example, over 600 people “signed an online petition asking the County to include the city in discussion of its plans for the site”).

The problem is a conflict over growth within the city limits of Maple Valley, which challenges its local autonomy and authority. In some ways, the City was set up for this problem by drawing its boundary around a large, rurally zoned plot on which it had no jurisdiction. One of the City's officials I spoke with indicated that the plot was “originally proposed for inclusion in the City but the County insisted the area be excluded from the City on the basis that they had a gravel mining operation there (resource extraction) and they wanted to keep it a rural land for the long term” (making Ron Sims’ claim on Weekday either misinformed, or misleading).

Although the County’s actions have the appearance of acting unilaterally, and further complicate things by effectively changing the rules of the game by re-zoning the plot from rural to urban, King County appears to act consistent to its vision and mandate to contain suburban sprawl and preserve as much as possible the rural feel of South East King County. The complicated land swap, which it proposed, should be encouraged and favored by all parties as it preserves unique parcels of land for future generations and corrals urban growth into areas already designated as such. But the County clearly fails to win the battle for public opinion. It is to wonder why they are failing to take a more accommodating approach to the problem: the fear of great impact of further urban density on the City, whether realistic or not, is the predominate opinion among the Maple Valley City Council, its government, and those residents who are concerned with the issue.

Given that the County reversed its policy of a no-bid deal with Yarrow Bay and opened the sale to RFP was a positive step toward transparency (the deal with the lobbyist, though not illegal, just evokes the sense it was crooked –a tremendous miscalculation on the County’s part). The City won a battle but it is still loosing a war: so far, Yarrow Bay is the only bidder! What Maple Valley should consider is that its image of a rural and simple community should be reconsidered. The sense of ruralism was not the doing of the City government but had more to do with the GMA and the County’s implementation of it. The City’s vision to “preserve its rural roots” in the midst explosive residential growth is likely not possible in a UGA (which the City more-or-less was prior to incorporation). The narrow roads are slammed with commuters everyday and the schools are filled to beyond capacity. The migration to the City continues by young families, flocking to the area for its inexpensive houses. The adherence to a rural roots vision limits the City’s options in this case and must change for its own good. And it is changing: for example, the City’s ban of big-box store development (recently reversed) and zoning primarily for residential units, created a dependence on developer fees as a major source of revenue --limiting its options in how to deal with the Donut Hole as it represents an opportunity cost forgone in the plans of the County.

What the two parties might consider is compromising in order to avoid a legal showdown (in which the City would bring and most likely lose, creating more animosity). For instance, could the County be convinced to re-zone the plot under 1997 growth estimates (when the plot should have been annexed to the city) than heavier 2008 estimates? Could the City change its vision of it being a growing, densely populated one, rather than a rural enclave, and see added population as a positive thing? The City might also consider framing arguments in terms of the King County Comprehensive Plan pointing out that if the development becomes higher-density apartments on the Donut Hole then the City should get more bus services, a new transit center, and be compensated by the County for road improvements along the main arterials.

Technorati Tags:
maple valley, suburbs, community development, urban planning,
information audit, knowledge management, knowledge-management, information management, software engineering, information technology, information-technology, Internet, e-government, egov, Government IT.

How Maple Valley Frames the Issue.
The boiled-down issue here is a conflict between two growth management policy regimes over future population growth within the city limits of MV and within that portion of SE King County. The City and County view the issue differently, so much so they each refer to the plot under different names: to Maple Valley, it is the Donut Hole; to King County, it is the Summit Pit, a simple gravel pit and maintenance facility for their road repair crews. Further, both the City and the County have legitimate claims to direct the fate of the Donut Hole, but of the two, the County has the right to assign its own zoning rules on the land as well as surplus and sell it. Meanwhile, the city has a greater stake in the fate of the plot since any new development will stress city services, regardless of it being incorporated into the city.

The City is by far more motivated to engage public involvement than does the County. A strong tradition of public involvement in growth issues started in the 1990’s with the Greater Maple Valley Community Council (still in existence) and carries on with well-attended City Council meetings by residents. The situation itself, that of a new, small city challenged unilaterally by the most important and influential county in the state, also compelled interest of the news media (as will be shown later). From May and October 2007, and on into January 2008, the City held special forums in addition to regular council meetings for residents to learn about the issues as well as voice their concerns (the special forums included selected King County Council representatives).

The suspicion among many residents who attended those hearings was that the County and its sole buyer planned to build “affordable housing”, a “phrase some Maple Valley residents have taken to mean subsidized apartments”. Indeed, apartments are an anathema to the City because those users do not fit into the self-image of Maple Valley ( they are stereotyped to be lower income and transient). The City Manager’s official position was that the city should be allowed to annex the Donut Hole before it is sold. Resigned to the fact that new residential developments are likely to happen no matter whose jurisdiction the land falls, the City should at least be able to benefit from construction taxes and fees (the principle source of revenue for the City have been fees on new houses) to handle such additional, unplanned, growth. The city claimed apartments on the plot could increase Maple Valley's population by 30 percent.

The City’s official website devotes a detailed section on the Donut Hole controversy. Several points made there illustrate the City’s perspective: that the County has refused to plan development with City, which is “inconsistent with its practice to cooperate with affected jurisdictions elsewhere and is in violation of its own Countywide Planning Policies”. The City complains that the County proposed to rezone the property from rural to higher density urban that what the City is prepared for prior to sale; the County was moving too fast for the City; and, that the County was proceeding “unilaterally and prematurely without joint planning and local input taken seriously” (http://www.ci.maple-valley.wa.us/donut_hole.asp).

How the County Frames The Issue.
King County takes its growth management mandate, as derived from the State’s 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA), very seriously. It is the County’s responsibility to implement the GMA with policy tools ranging from zoning regulations to more controversial ones such as mandating so-called Urban Growth Areas (UGA’s). It also buys and sells land for preservation purposes, setting such aside from development for the benefit of current and future residents. The County Council and its Executive see themselves as the stewards for growth in the County.

A turning point of sorts in this controversy occurred with two articles by the Seattle Times’ Lauren Vane. In them are details about how the Donut Hole deal included a very complex land swap engineered by a professional lobbyist and resident of Maple Valley, Martin Durkan Jr. One of his major clients, the sole developer named in the no-bid sale, the Yarrow Bay Group, agreed to purchase a strip of 276 acres of undeveloped forestland in King County, the Icicle Creek Forest, and include it in the deal for the Donut Hole. (This is not to imply that the land swap was a secret as County press releases in August 2007 described the deal; however, the articles subtly implied something crooked going on with the connection to Mr. Durkan). The County then would have a long sought after piece of forest to preserve for the future; and raise a good amount of revenue from the sale from the (to be) re-zoned Donut Hole.

These articles prompted King County Executive Ron Sims to refute any implied accusations of inappropriate dealings in his weekly talk show appearance on KUOW’s Weekday (January 17, 2008). Sims described the articles as the first major slur on his reputation in his 22 years in public service. Although the deal seemed fishy, Sims hotly claimed it was legal and vetted by the King County Prosecutor’s office. He held that the land “was unwanted by anyone, that no body wanted to annex” it. The County’s policy was to sell the land only if there was such a land swap for unprotected, undeveloped land involved. Sims said that the Icicle Creek Forest land was “incredibly valuable land for us to control” but difficult to come by as the current owners, Palmer Coke and Coal (Black Diamond) refused previous offers from the County –until this deal.

Perhaps in part from opposition by Maple Valley residents, (supported and encouraged by the City Council and government), or from the Lauren Vane articles, the County halted the land-sale talks and opened RFP’s on the Donut Hole. At this point, the County’s official position was that they had spent two years of talking with Yarrow Bay and could not agree on a price. Now, although the Icicle Creek property may no longer be part of the deal, County policy on development remains fixed on affordable housing to be a part of all future proposals.

Technorati Tags:
maple valley, suburbs, community development, urban planning,
information audit, knowledge management, knowledge-management, information management, software engineering, information technology, information-technology, Internet, e-government, egov, Government IT.