The University of Hawaii Faculty Senate’s Committee on Student Affairs is expected to discuss “Campus Security” as a new-business agenda item when it meets this afternoon.
A committee member sent the following email two days ago to the committee chair:
As reflected in (the 10/29 Honolulu Star-Bulletin) editorial titled “Get out the alert by any means,” I think the University community needs to ask the UH administration some hard questions about how (the 10/25) security threat was handled. In particular, I agree that, as stated in the editorial, “…An incident at the University of Hawaii at Manoa displays the need for better plans to alert those on campus….”
CHORE is advised that if the committee agrees to take up the issue, it will be discussed in depth at the body’s next meeting on November 21.
We hope that’s the outcome of today’s meeting, as questions raised within the UH community are much more likely to produce improved emergency communications than anything written here or elsewhere about campus security.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Star-Bulletin Editorial Supports CHORE’s View: UH Should Use More Communications Channels
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin summarizes its lead editorial today – Get out the alert by any means -- as follows:
"An incident at the University of Hawaii-Manoa displays the need for better plans to alert those on campuses."
Exactly right – as we’ve been saying in our posts since 10/26. The editorial concludes: "While it is difficult to gauge levels of danger without considering each event individually, every person on UH's campuses should be aware of procedures to keep safe." Text messaging, which apparently was the only communications channel UH officials used during last week’s incident, obviously is unable to do that.
Unfortunately, we’ve heard and seen nothing from officials to suggest they are revising their procedures. One could even infer from their public statements so far that they were satisfied with their reliance only on text messaging and apparently no other channels last week.
For the sake of everybody’s personal security on campus, we need to see evidence of a broader perspective up in Manoa – one that realizes TM can’t be the end-all in crisis communications just because it’s wireless. And in that regard, continue reading the next post below.
"An incident at the University of Hawaii-Manoa displays the need for better plans to alert those on campuses."
Exactly right – as we’ve been saying in our posts since 10/26. The editorial concludes: "While it is difficult to gauge levels of danger without considering each event individually, every person on UH's campuses should be aware of procedures to keep safe." Text messaging, which apparently was the only communications channel UH officials used during last week’s incident, obviously is unable to do that.
Unfortunately, we’ve heard and seen nothing from officials to suggest they are revising their procedures. One could even infer from their public statements so far that they were satisfied with their reliance only on text messaging and apparently no other channels last week.
For the sake of everybody’s personal security on campus, we need to see evidence of a broader perspective up in Manoa – one that realizes TM can’t be the end-all in crisis communications just because it’s wireless. And in that regard, continue reading the next post below.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
With Coincidental Timing, NPR Report Says ‘College Students Decline Text-Message Alerts’
The University of Hawaii’s enthusiasm over the use of text messaging to notify students and faculty about emergencies -- an approach CHORE believes is flawed -- needs rethinking in light of a National Public Radio story today about students' use of TM.
UH seemingly has embraced TM as a “higher-tech” medium to alert the campus community during emergencies. Yet less than 48 hours after Thursday’s incident, today’s report on NPR’s “Weekend Edition Saturday” should give UH security officials pause.
You can listen to the report at the program’s website, which has this summary:
Improving the Crisis Plan
UH’s apparently used only text messaging on Thursday to send its alert about the bus passenger overheard muttering about shooting 30 UH students. News reports mentioned no other methodology, and neither did UH spokesman Gregg Takayama’s email to CHORE.
NPR’s report tends to support CHORE's view on how to alert students and faculty about future emergencies:
We’ve alerted both spokesman Takayama and Dr. Francisco Hernandez, UH Vice Chancellor for Students, about NPR’s report and hope they and other University officials take it to heart as they work to improve their emergency alert system.
UH seemingly has embraced TM as a “higher-tech” medium to alert the campus community during emergencies. Yet less than 48 hours after Thursday’s incident, today’s report on NPR’s “Weekend Edition Saturday” should give UH security officials pause.
You can listen to the report at the program’s website, which has this summary:
"College administrators are finding that students are not rushing to sign up for cell phone text-message alerts. After the Virginia Tech shootings last spring, many campuses felt this was the answer to keeping their students alert to danger, but students don't share their concerns."
Improving the Crisis Plan
UH’s apparently used only text messaging on Thursday to send its alert about the bus passenger overheard muttering about shooting 30 UH students. News reports mentioned no other methodology, and neither did UH spokesman Gregg Takayama’s email to CHORE.
NPR’s report tends to support CHORE's view on how to alert students and faculty about future emergencies:
"Any threat to the security of the campus community warranting an alert to students and faculty will be disseminated by all available means – text messaging, emails, loudspeakers in buildings and in the campus’s exterior spaces, and broadcasts over KTUH and the commercial stations."
We’ve alerted both spokesman Takayama and Dr. Francisco Hernandez, UH Vice Chancellor for Students, about NPR’s report and hope they and other University officials take it to heart as they work to improve their emergency alert system.
Friday, October 26, 2007
In Starkest Terms, Yesterday’s “Shooter” Alert Was a Failure; UH Needs a Better Crisis Plan
This will be a long post of an email exchange based on today's first commentary here at CHORE on what we believe was an inadequate emergency alert to the University of Hawaii community. The first email is from UH spokesman Gregg Takayama, who responded to our message calling attention to CHORE's first post. Our response to Gregg follows his email:
Hi Doug:
Thanks,
Gregg
Our response:
Aloha,
Doug
(A postscript said the email exchange would be posted here at CHORE.)
•••••••••••••••••
We urge University officials to see yesterday's incident as a wake-up call and reason to revise their planning on how to keep the campus community informed about security threats. The current plan is demonstrably inadequate.
Hi Doug:
Thanks for your concern about emergency communications at the UH Manoa campus. Just to let you know that the email alert system used yesterday is not the only method of emergency communications available to us. Based on information provided to UH campus security by Honolulu police, it was decided that it was not necessary to cancel classes or halt any planned activities at UH Manoa.
If it was necessary to evacuate buildings or to order people to stay inside and lock their doors, we would have used building PA systems and loudspeakers on campus security vehicles to make the announcements. Loudspeakers were installed on all campus security vehicles earlier this year (post-Virginia Tech). We would also have asked for assistance from HPD to do so.
Text-messaging on cell phones is another method of communications that’s being developed, with testing to begin later this year. And in an emergency, we would also enlist help from commercial radio and TV outlets to get word out to our campus community.
I think the underlying theme, Doug, is that we realize no single technology is fool-proof, so our emergency communications range from low-tech loudspeakers (and loud speakers) to the higher-tech. UH Manoa is probably the only campus in the nation to suffer damage from flood, fire, and earthquake in the span of about 3 years. Campus officials with much more experience than me realize that we’re likely to lose power in a disaster, rendering computer email useless; so other means are necessary.
I hope this clarifies a bit what we’re doing at UH Manoa, and what we’re prepared to do, in case of emergencies.
If it was necessary to evacuate buildings or to order people to stay inside and lock their doors, we would have used building PA systems and loudspeakers on campus security vehicles to make the announcements. Loudspeakers were installed on all campus security vehicles earlier this year (post-Virginia Tech). We would also have asked for assistance from HPD to do so.
Text-messaging on cell phones is another method of communications that’s being developed, with testing to begin later this year. And in an emergency, we would also enlist help from commercial radio and TV outlets to get word out to our campus community.
I think the underlying theme, Doug, is that we realize no single technology is fool-proof, so our emergency communications range from low-tech loudspeakers (and loud speakers) to the higher-tech. UH Manoa is probably the only campus in the nation to suffer damage from flood, fire, and earthquake in the span of about 3 years. Campus officials with much more experience than me realize that we’re likely to lose power in a disaster, rendering computer email useless; so other means are necessary.
I hope this clarifies a bit what we’re doing at UH Manoa, and what we’re prepared to do, in case of emergencies.
Thanks,
Gregg
Our response:
Gregg, thanks for your email. Here’s the issue as we see it:
Once the University is moved to issue an alert about a possible attack on the campus community, as you were yesterday, UH has an obligation to communicate what it knows as broadly, completely, efficiently and rapidly as possible. From the available evidence, UH didn’t do that.
We already know from published reports and anecdotally that the text message reached only some students and faculty. We don’t know what percentage did not receive it, but it’s not hard to imagine a majority was uninformed of the threat. Therefore, the text message essentially was a failure because too many members of the University community were unaware of the threat.
You allude in your email to other communications channels. UH apparently did not employ them yesterday. Newspaper accounts don’t mention them, and neither does your email. What was the information provided to UH campus security by Honolulu police that led University officials to conclude only a text message was needed but not loudspeakers, not announcements in classes and other buildings, not broadcasts by on-campus KTUH-FM and the commercial stations?
Unlike campus security officials, we don’t have insider information that allows them to nuance menacing threats. Maybe someone who’s overheard muttering to himself on a city bus only warrants a text message and not the other channels available to UH. Frankly, we’re not comfortable with security officials making those nuanced calls. That’s the kind of decision Virginia Tech officials made on their own, with disastrous results.
Here’s our suggestion for your emergency communications SOP:
Any threat to the security of the campus community warranting an alert to students and faculty will be disseminated by all available means – text messaging, emails, loudspeakers in buildings and in the campus’s exterior spaces, and broadcasts over KTUH and the commercial stations.
In other words, the alert level would go from ZERO to HIGH with no intermediate levels. We think this mindset can’t be faulted, whereas the SOP guiding yesterday’s ineffective alert already is under attack. Yesterday’s threat involved potential mass murder, and with the threat-maker’s whereabouts still unknown, UH issued an ineffective alert that may have eluded thousands of individuals on your campus. What possible reason did UH have to downplay the importance of that threat and therefore communicate with half measures to your community?
A final suggestion: Allow students and faculty to make their own decisions about how to react to a threat. If students and faculty members decide to leave or skip class based on a report such as yesterday’s, let them, and don’t penalize them for their absence.
If you’re going to trust personal communications devices such as cell phones with text messaging, take a giant leap and actually trust individual students and faculty members to make good decisions about their personal safety. They deserve that much.
Once the University is moved to issue an alert about a possible attack on the campus community, as you were yesterday, UH has an obligation to communicate what it knows as broadly, completely, efficiently and rapidly as possible. From the available evidence, UH didn’t do that.
We already know from published reports and anecdotally that the text message reached only some students and faculty. We don’t know what percentage did not receive it, but it’s not hard to imagine a majority was uninformed of the threat. Therefore, the text message essentially was a failure because too many members of the University community were unaware of the threat.
You allude in your email to other communications channels. UH apparently did not employ them yesterday. Newspaper accounts don’t mention them, and neither does your email. What was the information provided to UH campus security by Honolulu police that led University officials to conclude only a text message was needed but not loudspeakers, not announcements in classes and other buildings, not broadcasts by on-campus KTUH-FM and the commercial stations?
Unlike campus security officials, we don’t have insider information that allows them to nuance menacing threats. Maybe someone who’s overheard muttering to himself on a city bus only warrants a text message and not the other channels available to UH. Frankly, we’re not comfortable with security officials making those nuanced calls. That’s the kind of decision Virginia Tech officials made on their own, with disastrous results.
Here’s our suggestion for your emergency communications SOP:
Any threat to the security of the campus community warranting an alert to students and faculty will be disseminated by all available means – text messaging, emails, loudspeakers in buildings and in the campus’s exterior spaces, and broadcasts over KTUH and the commercial stations.
In other words, the alert level would go from ZERO to HIGH with no intermediate levels. We think this mindset can’t be faulted, whereas the SOP guiding yesterday’s ineffective alert already is under attack. Yesterday’s threat involved potential mass murder, and with the threat-maker’s whereabouts still unknown, UH issued an ineffective alert that may have eluded thousands of individuals on your campus. What possible reason did UH have to downplay the importance of that threat and therefore communicate with half measures to your community?
A final suggestion: Allow students and faculty to make their own decisions about how to react to a threat. If students and faculty members decide to leave or skip class based on a report such as yesterday’s, let them, and don’t penalize them for their absence.
If you’re going to trust personal communications devices such as cell phones with text messaging, take a giant leap and actually trust individual students and faculty members to make good decisions about their personal safety. They deserve that much.
Aloha,
Doug
(A postscript said the email exchange would be posted here at CHORE.)
•••••••••••••••••
We urge University officials to see yesterday's incident as a wake-up call and reason to revise their planning on how to keep the campus community informed about security threats. The current plan is demonstrably inadequate.
UH’s Email Alert Fails the Efficiency Test; Students Themselves Reveal TM’s Weakness
Yesterday’s security alert at the University of Hawaii raises additional questions about the wisdom of relying on text messaging as the primary way to communicate with students and faculty in an emergency.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
As reported in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin, a student overheard a bus passenger talking to himself about shooting 30 students. UH officials sent an email to students and faculty urging caution.
Two-Hour Information Gap
Except for the email, there apparently was no system in place to warn the campus community about the would-be shooter. As reported in the Star-Bulletin, some email recipients “were shocked” to learn about the potential threat because they hadn’t checked their email for two hours. Said one student:
“Not too many people actually check their email.” What more need be said about relying on text messaging to spread emergency alerts?
Low-Tech Solutions Needed
Does UH have a campus loudspeaker capability? We know it has a radio station. Was the alert broadcast over KTUH? What about the mass telephony capability that’s been touted? There’s no mention in the newspaper stories of the alert using any of these media.
Society’s love affair with personal technology is as hot as ever, yet each new emergency raises questions about relying on text messaging as the primary emergency communications channel. Even UH’s spokesman cited its current limitations:
Students and faculty can’t tolerate a two-hour delay in being informed about their potential peril. “Not too many people actually check their email.” That’s by a 22-year-old from the heart of the text-messaging generation!
Yesterday’s events revealed UH’s seriously flawed capability to inform the campus about emergencies. Rather than obsessively gather everyone's cell phone number, University planners need to perfect additional channels -- including low-tech loudspeakers and radio -- to alert their community.
PS: We have it on good authority (our wife, a UH student) that ALL of her instructors announce cell phones must be turned off during class. If students are observed text messaging, they're told to turn off the phone. Case closed.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Mid-Morning Update: CHORE wrote to Dr. Francisco Hernandez, UH Vice Chancellor for Students, and received this reply: "We are all concerned about the safety of our students, staff and faculty. I will bring your email to the attention of the officials on campus who have the responsibility of communicating with our campus during these types of situations."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••As reported in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin, a student overheard a bus passenger talking to himself about shooting 30 students. UH officials sent an email to students and faculty urging caution.
Two-Hour Information Gap
Except for the email, there apparently was no system in place to warn the campus community about the would-be shooter. As reported in the Star-Bulletin, some email recipients “were shocked” to learn about the potential threat because they hadn’t checked their email for two hours. Said one student:
"I just got out of class. Oh no! He's planning to shoot 30 students on campus? Oh my goodness. Not too many people actually check their email."
“Not too many people actually check their email.” What more need be said about relying on text messaging to spread emergency alerts?
Low-Tech Solutions Needed
Does UH have a campus loudspeaker capability? We know it has a radio station. Was the alert broadcast over KTUH? What about the mass telephony capability that’s been touted? There’s no mention in the newspaper stories of the alert using any of these media.
Society’s love affair with personal technology is as hot as ever, yet each new emergency raises questions about relying on text messaging as the primary emergency communications channel. Even UH’s spokesman cited its current limitations:
"It's not clear that (cell phone carriers) have the ability to send out 10,000 or 15,000 text messages at the same instance."
Students and faculty can’t tolerate a two-hour delay in being informed about their potential peril. “Not too many people actually check their email.” That’s by a 22-year-old from the heart of the text-messaging generation!
Yesterday’s events revealed UH’s seriously flawed capability to inform the campus about emergencies. Rather than obsessively gather everyone's cell phone number, University planners need to perfect additional channels -- including low-tech loudspeakers and radio -- to alert their community.
PS: We have it on good authority (our wife, a UH student) that ALL of her instructors announce cell phones must be turned off during class. If students are observed text messaging, they're told to turn off the phone. Case closed.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Advertiser Story Captures a Contrite Attitude Among Key Players in Communications Chain
Having been interviewed by the Honolulu Advertiser for its series on emergency preparedness, we waited for the paper’s delivery wondering how it would play the story. Would it focus on comments from the state’s high-gloss press conference on Saturday or dig deeper? The very first paragraph set our mind at ease:
“Persistent questions remain unanswered about the state’s plan to communicate with residents in the event of another devastating natural disaster such as the Oct. 15 quakes, say critics who complained bitterly about what seemed like an information vacuum during the 24-hour outage following the quakes.”
Paragraph 2 highlighted residents’ upset over State Civil Defense’s delay in allying fears about a possible tsunami. Paragraph 4 mentioned HECO’s two-hour delay in explaining why the power was out throughout Oahu, and the following paragraph questioned how information will be given to residents quickly.
Seeing It the Same Way
It’s clear others share at least some of CHORE’s perspective on the 10/15/06 communications failures. It’s also interesting that after their prolonged argumentative defensiveness in the face of criticism of their performance, some of the key players in the communications chain now seem contrite.
The general manager of all Clear Channel stations said the Clear Channel staff has been given new training. “We assessed what we did. We always try to improve. We’re going to work hard to do a better job,” he said.
That refreshing attitude is also a noticeable shift from his earlier somewhat self-satisfied descriptions of how flagship station KSSK performed during the emergency. One would hope it’s evidence of a new emergency mindset among all station personnel, including on-air personalities who seemed to be stuck in entertainment mode during the blackout. (Maybe this is the last time that we’ll recall KSSK’s decision to air the pre-recorded John Tesh show while half the island was still without power.)
HECO says it is assessing ways to prioritize restoring power to media outlets so information can flow quicker, and it has installed a direct communications link to emergency station KSSK. The utility, along with other emergency responders, now has a list of unpublished radio station telephone numbers so its personnel can get through during a crisis. (As noted here several times, that’s a lesson we learned at HECO during Hurricane Iwa 25 years ago!)
Even the State Adjutant General says in this story, “We’re going to get on the air right away,” a concession that State Civil Defense personnel were slow in providing information to the public.
Ah, Yes – the Public
The Advertiser story concludes with our continuing concern that the public has been shut out of the dialogue over how we’re to be served with emergency communications. “This (Comprehensive Communications Review) committee was a committee of insiders. The process still has a weak link until the public has a chance to ask questions.”
CHORE urges fellow citizens with similar concerns to call the Governor’s office to register your support for a public meeting on the emergency response plan.
“Persistent questions remain unanswered about the state’s plan to communicate with residents in the event of another devastating natural disaster such as the Oct. 15 quakes, say critics who complained bitterly about what seemed like an information vacuum during the 24-hour outage following the quakes.”
Paragraph 2 highlighted residents’ upset over State Civil Defense’s delay in allying fears about a possible tsunami. Paragraph 4 mentioned HECO’s two-hour delay in explaining why the power was out throughout Oahu, and the following paragraph questioned how information will be given to residents quickly.
Seeing It the Same Way
It’s clear others share at least some of CHORE’s perspective on the 10/15/06 communications failures. It’s also interesting that after their prolonged argumentative defensiveness in the face of criticism of their performance, some of the key players in the communications chain now seem contrite.
The general manager of all Clear Channel stations said the Clear Channel staff has been given new training. “We assessed what we did. We always try to improve. We’re going to work hard to do a better job,” he said.
That refreshing attitude is also a noticeable shift from his earlier somewhat self-satisfied descriptions of how flagship station KSSK performed during the emergency. One would hope it’s evidence of a new emergency mindset among all station personnel, including on-air personalities who seemed to be stuck in entertainment mode during the blackout. (Maybe this is the last time that we’ll recall KSSK’s decision to air the pre-recorded John Tesh show while half the island was still without power.)
HECO says it is assessing ways to prioritize restoring power to media outlets so information can flow quicker, and it has installed a direct communications link to emergency station KSSK. The utility, along with other emergency responders, now has a list of unpublished radio station telephone numbers so its personnel can get through during a crisis. (As noted here several times, that’s a lesson we learned at HECO during Hurricane Iwa 25 years ago!)
Even the State Adjutant General says in this story, “We’re going to get on the air right away,” a concession that State Civil Defense personnel were slow in providing information to the public.
Ah, Yes – the Public
The Advertiser story concludes with our continuing concern that the public has been shut out of the dialogue over how we’re to be served with emergency communications. “This (Comprehensive Communications Review) committee was a committee of insiders. The process still has a weak link until the public has a chance to ask questions.”
CHORE urges fellow citizens with similar concerns to call the Governor’s office to register your support for a public meeting on the emergency response plan.
Monday, October 15, 2007
What Exactly Has Been Updated in EAS Plan?
The first “key recommendation” in the CCRC report says the State’s Emergency Alert System Plan has been updated. One year after the 10/15/06 earthquakes and Oahu’s massive island-wide power outage, these words do not appear in the plan update that's available online: “power,” “outage,” “electricity” and “blackout.”
Just what was updated in this plan? That’s another question to be asked at a future public hearing on the CCRC’s report (see below).
Just what was updated in this plan? That’s another question to be asked at a future public hearing on the CCRC’s report (see below).
Despite Report, Questions about the Human Element Remain Unexamined on Anniversary
The CCRC’s report released to the media two days ago remains unavailable on-line to the public as this is written in early morning on the one-year anniversary of the Big Island earthquakes and Oahu blackout.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Continuing today's earlier post:
Today’s Honolulu Advertiser carries the second of three days of coverage on the emergency’s aftermath one year ago. Hawaiian Electric issues are the focus today, and tomorrow the paper says its coverage will focus on “State plans for better communications in event of a disaster.”
We’ve already learned about obvious technical communications fixes – alleged updates of the Emergency Alert System (although as we noted yesterday, the latest plan on-line doesn’t show much of an update); a new media center at State Civil Defense headquarters in Diamond Head, and dedicated phone lines to broadcast outlets.
Unexamined as yet in this anniversary’s performance assessment is the human element – how the men and women charged with decision making during a crisis performed and how the protocols they’re meant to follow have been improved.
Some of their decisions and assumptions were weak, such as assuming they could communicate easily using cell phone networks and assuming the public would panic if the word “tsunami” were uttered, even in a message saying no tsunami had been generated. If you’ve forgotten about that gaffe, check out the second commentary posted here at CHORE three days after the earthquakes.
Technical fixes are actually the easiest to make. Changing human behavior to respond more appropriately during a crisis is something much more difficult.
Tomorrow’s Advertiser will make good reading….and so would the CCRC report itself if the State gets around to posting it on-line today for citizens to evaluate on our own.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Mid-Morning Update: The CCRC’s report finally was posted online this morning, two days after the committee posted the video of its Saturday press conference. Despite the report's shortcomings (see below,) all citizens concerned about their families’ communications lifeline during an emergency should read it.
First Impressions: Earthquake Sunday last year was a needed wake-up call. The long description of upgrades at the state’s broadcasting stations is impressive, and a number of other improvements undoubtedly enhance emergency communications.
Continuing impression: This report is flawed because the CCRC did not include the public in any organized and meaningful way. One example of where public input is needed is paragraph 8, page 3: “Cell phone text messages. This is where the state wants to go for the future. Working with cell phone companies.”
Why is the CCRC enthused about text messaging? How does it deal with skepticism that major hurricanes could wipe out cell phone networks and that a prolonged power outage would degrade the networks’ capabilities? What percentage of the state’s population uses text messaging? (That’s a statistic that’s undoubtedly floating around somewhere.) What age groups never, sometimes and always use TM? Why is text messaging needed to disseminate information in a state where 99.99% of the population has access to radio? How much money will be required to focus new energy on text messaging?
We don’t know any of the answers because the CCRC and State Civil Defense consistently have refused for the past year to open themselves up to public comment. Their unstated message easily can be interpreted as, “We know best. Go away.”
The Governor should consider this “final” CCRC report to be yet another draft until she concedes that public dialogue will only make the list of recommendations better.
The people know best, Governor. We always thought you believed that, too.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••First Impressions: Earthquake Sunday last year was a needed wake-up call. The long description of upgrades at the state’s broadcasting stations is impressive, and a number of other improvements undoubtedly enhance emergency communications.
Continuing impression: This report is flawed because the CCRC did not include the public in any organized and meaningful way. One example of where public input is needed is paragraph 8, page 3: “Cell phone text messages. This is where the state wants to go for the future. Working with cell phone companies.”
Why is the CCRC enthused about text messaging? How does it deal with skepticism that major hurricanes could wipe out cell phone networks and that a prolonged power outage would degrade the networks’ capabilities? What percentage of the state’s population uses text messaging? (That’s a statistic that’s undoubtedly floating around somewhere.) What age groups never, sometimes and always use TM? Why is text messaging needed to disseminate information in a state where 99.99% of the population has access to radio? How much money will be required to focus new energy on text messaging?
We don’t know any of the answers because the CCRC and State Civil Defense consistently have refused for the past year to open themselves up to public comment. Their unstated message easily can be interpreted as, “We know best. Go away.”
The Governor should consider this “final” CCRC report to be yet another draft until she concedes that public dialogue will only make the list of recommendations better.
The people know best, Governor. We always thought you believed that, too.
Continuing today's earlier post:
Today’s Honolulu Advertiser carries the second of three days of coverage on the emergency’s aftermath one year ago. Hawaiian Electric issues are the focus today, and tomorrow the paper says its coverage will focus on “State plans for better communications in event of a disaster.”
We’ve already learned about obvious technical communications fixes – alleged updates of the Emergency Alert System (although as we noted yesterday, the latest plan on-line doesn’t show much of an update); a new media center at State Civil Defense headquarters in Diamond Head, and dedicated phone lines to broadcast outlets.
Unexamined as yet in this anniversary’s performance assessment is the human element – how the men and women charged with decision making during a crisis performed and how the protocols they’re meant to follow have been improved.
Some of their decisions and assumptions were weak, such as assuming they could communicate easily using cell phone networks and assuming the public would panic if the word “tsunami” were uttered, even in a message saying no tsunami had been generated. If you’ve forgotten about that gaffe, check out the second commentary posted here at CHORE three days after the earthquakes.
Technical fixes are actually the easiest to make. Changing human behavior to respond more appropriately during a crisis is something much more difficult.
Tomorrow’s Advertiser will make good reading….and so would the CCRC report itself if the State gets around to posting it on-line today for citizens to evaluate on our own.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Emergency Communications Enhancements Should Be Briefed to the Public for Reaction
There’s still no on-line link today to the Comprehensive Communications Review Committee’s report that was submitted yesterday to the Governor. As we noted in last night’s post, the January 5th draft report was available immediately at the Governor’s website; why the final report isn’t similarly available for public scrutiny is a question an inquiring reporter may wish to ask.
We have to rely on media this morning for details, and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin’s list of “key recommendations for improving emergency communications in the state” apparently summarizes what’s in the report. CHORE was founded in the spirit of Citizens Helping Officials Respond to Emergencies, so let’s take a look at some of the suggestions on that list:
• Update Hawaii Emergency Alert System Plan – That’s definitely a good idea; as CHORE noted 10 days after the 10/15/06 earthquake and power outage, the EAS wasn’t activated until three hours after the emergency began. The Honolulu Advertiser reported that the City didn’t implement the EAS because of “a lack of training and state protocol.” How has the plan been updated in the past year to eliminate these problems? See if you can tell by clicking on the link to the Hawaii State EAS Plan in the left column of the Hawaii State Civil Defense website. The last change, dated 10/26/06, appears to have been an update to a list of phone numbers. Is that it? Are no other EAS changes merited, or have they been made but aren’t available to the public on the web? Those are questions a reporter could ask, and we hope at least one does.
• Utilize cell phone text messaging – Our emergency communications planners continue to advocate use of this new technology for use in hurricanes, tsunamis, floods and other major disasters. Maybe they know from extensive research that the cell phone network has been sufficiently “hardened” to survive category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Maybe the difficulty in keeping the network operating in an extended power outage has been overcome. Maybe they’re convinced a population with the oldest demographics in the nation is well suited for text messaging. Maybe they believe text messaging is an excellent way to keep the hearing impaired community informed during emergencies. Maybe their analysis of these and other issues related to text messaging is in the final report. We really don’t know what to think about text messaging because we haven’t seen the report. We do know this, however: The recommendation to promote text messaging is from a committee whose membership, as we noted in January, includes representatives from Cingular Wireless, Hawaiian Telcom, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless. We aren't surprised TM is on the list.
Next: A Public Hearing on the Plan?
The list continues with suggestions that appear well founded, such as establishing a media/joint information center at Diamond Head crater and installing dedicated phone lines to broadcast stations. Readers can judge the recommendations for themselves, and after you do, CHORE hopes you’ll call the Governor’s office and ask when this plan will be briefed to the public in an open meeting.
It should have happened long ago while the draft was still being assessed. Now that the report itself has been “hardened” in a final version, the committee should have no reticence in discussing it with the audience that emergency communication is supposed to serve.
We have to rely on media this morning for details, and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin’s list of “key recommendations for improving emergency communications in the state” apparently summarizes what’s in the report. CHORE was founded in the spirit of Citizens Helping Officials Respond to Emergencies, so let’s take a look at some of the suggestions on that list:
• Update Hawaii Emergency Alert System Plan – That’s definitely a good idea; as CHORE noted 10 days after the 10/15/06 earthquake and power outage, the EAS wasn’t activated until three hours after the emergency began. The Honolulu Advertiser reported that the City didn’t implement the EAS because of “a lack of training and state protocol.” How has the plan been updated in the past year to eliminate these problems? See if you can tell by clicking on the link to the Hawaii State EAS Plan in the left column of the Hawaii State Civil Defense website. The last change, dated 10/26/06, appears to have been an update to a list of phone numbers. Is that it? Are no other EAS changes merited, or have they been made but aren’t available to the public on the web? Those are questions a reporter could ask, and we hope at least one does.
• Utilize cell phone text messaging – Our emergency communications planners continue to advocate use of this new technology for use in hurricanes, tsunamis, floods and other major disasters. Maybe they know from extensive research that the cell phone network has been sufficiently “hardened” to survive category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Maybe the difficulty in keeping the network operating in an extended power outage has been overcome. Maybe they’re convinced a population with the oldest demographics in the nation is well suited for text messaging. Maybe they believe text messaging is an excellent way to keep the hearing impaired community informed during emergencies. Maybe their analysis of these and other issues related to text messaging is in the final report. We really don’t know what to think about text messaging because we haven’t seen the report. We do know this, however: The recommendation to promote text messaging is from a committee whose membership, as we noted in January, includes representatives from Cingular Wireless, Hawaiian Telcom, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless. We aren't surprised TM is on the list.
Next: A Public Hearing on the Plan?
The list continues with suggestions that appear well founded, such as establishing a media/joint information center at Diamond Head crater and installing dedicated phone lines to broadcast stations. Readers can judge the recommendations for themselves, and after you do, CHORE hopes you’ll call the Governor’s office and ask when this plan will be briefed to the public in an open meeting.
It should have happened long ago while the draft was still being assessed. Now that the report itself has been “hardened” in a final version, the committee should have no reticence in discussing it with the audience that emergency communication is supposed to serve.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
CCRC Report Goes to Governor and News Media, But for the Rest of Us, We’ll Just Have to Wait
The Comprehensive Communications Review Committee has submitted its report and held its news conference, which you can view and read about it at the Governor’s website.
But you can’t read the report there. Unlike the CCRC’s draft report that was posted online in January, the final report isn’t available to the public as of late Saturday the 13th. A report that purportedly details how the public will be better served in future emergencies is not yet available to the public. You could laugh if it weren't so serious.
Of course, this isn’t unusual, since the public has never been party to the committee’s doings. As CHORE noted in a recent post, the committee was a group of insiders who among themselves and without public scrutiny have concluded what’s best for us.
Here’s the official word on the committee’s doings, as presented at Saturday’s press conference by co-chair Lenny Klompus, the Governor’s senior communications advisor and PR man:
“The Committee is very proud of the report that was put together and that you have right now. The public should feel great confidence in the communications delivered to them accurately and in a timely manner in an emergency based on what the committee was able to do over this last year.”
Just what did the committee do that should make us confident? We don’t know. We’re simply told we should be confident that the same people and agencies who failed so obviously on October 15, 2006 to provide timely emergency communications will do the job properly in the future.
That’s asking a lot. Unanswered at this moment are the questions CHORE posed two days ago about what we hope is in the CCRC’s final report.
Since citizens were not allowed into the committee’s workings and deliberations, it’s completely within our right to demand that this document be made available on the Internet immediately.
We should be confident the Governor will do the right thing...........right?
But you can’t read the report there. Unlike the CCRC’s draft report that was posted online in January, the final report isn’t available to the public as of late Saturday the 13th. A report that purportedly details how the public will be better served in future emergencies is not yet available to the public. You could laugh if it weren't so serious.
Of course, this isn’t unusual, since the public has never been party to the committee’s doings. As CHORE noted in a recent post, the committee was a group of insiders who among themselves and without public scrutiny have concluded what’s best for us.
Here’s the official word on the committee’s doings, as presented at Saturday’s press conference by co-chair Lenny Klompus, the Governor’s senior communications advisor and PR man:
“The Committee is very proud of the report that was put together and that you have right now. The public should feel great confidence in the communications delivered to them accurately and in a timely manner in an emergency based on what the committee was able to do over this last year.”
Just what did the committee do that should make us confident? We don’t know. We’re simply told we should be confident that the same people and agencies who failed so obviously on October 15, 2006 to provide timely emergency communications will do the job properly in the future.
That’s asking a lot. Unanswered at this moment are the questions CHORE posed two days ago about what we hope is in the CCRC’s final report.
Since citizens were not allowed into the committee’s workings and deliberations, it’s completely within our right to demand that this document be made available on the Internet immediately.
We should be confident the Governor will do the right thing...........right?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
On the Anniversary of Quake & Blackout Sunday, Do You Feel More Secure or Less Secure?
That’s a political question from another era, but it’s worth asking about emergency readiness as we approach the anniversary of the multiple crisis response failures on October 15, 2006 following a Big Island earthquake.
The Governor-appointed Comprehensive Communications Review Committee (CCRC) is expected to issue its final report this weekend on how to improve future responses. It’s worth recalling some of the lowlights of 10/15/06 and the following months so we can compare the report’s recommendations to what we experienced and later learned about emergency response deficiencies, especially on Oahu.
Living Murphy’s Law
The list of communications-related issues, problems and attitudes that prompted CHORE’s launch and subsequent commentaries begins with the inability to inform citizens of the emergency in a timely manner. (We’ve hyperlinked to CHORE’s earlier posts on these subjects.)
• Power Failure, Communications Failure – As we first noted in a Honolulu Advertiser commentary two days after the blackout and then here at CHORE in our first post, institutions we’ve come to trust and rely on did not respond well to the island-wide power outage. Nearly all radio stations went off the air around 7:15 a.m. and stayed off for hours; some didn’t begin broadcasting until the next day. All but one TV station also went dark on Earthquake Sunday.
The few radio stations with backup generator power apparently hadn’t anticipated how they might immediately switch to alternative programming, such as a pre-recorded tape noting an emergency condition. KSSK, the designated emergency broadcaster, continued its pre-recorded public affairs program for about 45 minutes even as every home on Oahu was without electricity. That evening, with half of Oahu still blacked out, the station returned to its regular programming by airing the John Tesh Radio Show – a remarkable decision in the midst of an ongoing emergency affecting hundreds of thousands of residents. Despite these obvious shortcomings, the State’s Adjutant General later testified before the State Legislature that the station’s performance was "incredible" and “fabulous” – leaving the impression that he could see no room for improvement, which was absurd.
We await the CCRC’s report for evidence that Hawaii’s broadcasters have improved their ability to remain on the air in an emergency. The report should reveal which stations have upgraded their backup power capabilities and what the others are doing to improve their ability to meet their responsibilities to the public. We might also hope for indications that an “emergency mindset” has been adopted to guide the stations’ programming during future emergencies; e.g., are pre-recorded emergency status messages ready to air that would satisfy the public’s craving for information in an emergency? A recorded emergency-related message is preferable to business as usual.
• Expecting Professionalism from First Responders – State Civil Defense dropped the ball on October 15th insofar as fulfilling one of its primary responsibilities – timely communications with the public. CHORE made that point in a Honolulu Star-Bulletin commentary in February and hasn’t backed away from that assertion. The aforementioned Adjutant General chose to attack CHORE in his response to our commentary as he defended his agency’s performance: “This was an information delay, not a failure….”
As we noted in our March 1st response to General Lee: “In other words, it’s not State Civil Defense’s fault that the public didn’t receive information in a timely manner. It was other people’s fault – Hawaiian Electric, the cell phone companies and radio and TV stations without backup generators.” General Lee's views on his agency's failure to carry out a basic responsibility was equally absurd. If a messenger -- State Civil Defense -- fails to foresee predictable problems in delivering a message, the failure rests with the messenger, not with others.
Will the CCRC’s report detail State Civil Defense’s adjustments to its SOP for communicating with the public? In light of the agency’s refusal to admit any shortcomings, that may be too much to expect, but it’s something we the people should be told. Using a phrase the Adjutant General can appreciate, this is need-to-know information. Failure to detail internal communications capabilities and enhancements will render the CCRC report less than satisfactory.
• Those Missing Emergency Sirens – As the Honolulu Star-Bulletin first reported, there are scores of communities throughout Hawaii with inadequate emergency siren coverage. CHORE observed on the same day that it was exceptionally bad judgment for the civil defense agencies to refuse to disclose which communities were not served by the sirens; it took weeks before those communities were identified.
Look to see if the CCRC report tells us anything about plans to fill those gaps.
• The CCRC and the public – A major flaw in this committee’s charter has been the absence of any citizen involvement. To be sure, members of the committee are all citizens of Hawaii, but as we noted here as early as October 18, 2006, no “average” members of the public were appointed to sit on this committee. And since the CCRC’s meetings were not open to the public, we’re put in a position to trust the government once again about what it’s doing to improve emergency communications. The co-chairs, by the way, are two advisors to the Governor and the Adjutant General; CHORE’s suggestion that an independent chair be appointed to enhance the body’s credibility predictably went nowhere.
It strikes us as truly amazing that a body meant to improve communications to the public has never asked members of the public to participate. Equally bewildering has been the news media’s hands-off attitude about this committee, which after all is supposed to be improving how we citizens are informed about life-threatening emergency conditions. Some meetings produced no media coverage whatsoever. To their credit, some journalists who were invited to sit on the committee withdrew when they realized they’d be in a conflict of interest – in essence, making news instead of covering it.
If the CCRC keeps to its announced schedule, its report will be open to public examination on Saturday, October 13th and presumably will receive newspaper coverage the next day. Whether the committee will finally provide the public an opportunity to comment on those proposals in an open hearing remains – as the editorials so often say – to be seen.
The Governor-appointed Comprehensive Communications Review Committee (CCRC) is expected to issue its final report this weekend on how to improve future responses. It’s worth recalling some of the lowlights of 10/15/06 and the following months so we can compare the report’s recommendations to what we experienced and later learned about emergency response deficiencies, especially on Oahu.
Living Murphy’s Law
The list of communications-related issues, problems and attitudes that prompted CHORE’s launch and subsequent commentaries begins with the inability to inform citizens of the emergency in a timely manner. (We’ve hyperlinked to CHORE’s earlier posts on these subjects.)
• Power Failure, Communications Failure – As we first noted in a Honolulu Advertiser commentary two days after the blackout and then here at CHORE in our first post, institutions we’ve come to trust and rely on did not respond well to the island-wide power outage. Nearly all radio stations went off the air around 7:15 a.m. and stayed off for hours; some didn’t begin broadcasting until the next day. All but one TV station also went dark on Earthquake Sunday.
The few radio stations with backup generator power apparently hadn’t anticipated how they might immediately switch to alternative programming, such as a pre-recorded tape noting an emergency condition. KSSK, the designated emergency broadcaster, continued its pre-recorded public affairs program for about 45 minutes even as every home on Oahu was without electricity. That evening, with half of Oahu still blacked out, the station returned to its regular programming by airing the John Tesh Radio Show – a remarkable decision in the midst of an ongoing emergency affecting hundreds of thousands of residents. Despite these obvious shortcomings, the State’s Adjutant General later testified before the State Legislature that the station’s performance was "incredible" and “fabulous” – leaving the impression that he could see no room for improvement, which was absurd.
We await the CCRC’s report for evidence that Hawaii’s broadcasters have improved their ability to remain on the air in an emergency. The report should reveal which stations have upgraded their backup power capabilities and what the others are doing to improve their ability to meet their responsibilities to the public. We might also hope for indications that an “emergency mindset” has been adopted to guide the stations’ programming during future emergencies; e.g., are pre-recorded emergency status messages ready to air that would satisfy the public’s craving for information in an emergency? A recorded emergency-related message is preferable to business as usual.
• Expecting Professionalism from First Responders – State Civil Defense dropped the ball on October 15th insofar as fulfilling one of its primary responsibilities – timely communications with the public. CHORE made that point in a Honolulu Star-Bulletin commentary in February and hasn’t backed away from that assertion. The aforementioned Adjutant General chose to attack CHORE in his response to our commentary as he defended his agency’s performance: “This was an information delay, not a failure….”
As we noted in our March 1st response to General Lee: “In other words, it’s not State Civil Defense’s fault that the public didn’t receive information in a timely manner. It was other people’s fault – Hawaiian Electric, the cell phone companies and radio and TV stations without backup generators.” General Lee's views on his agency's failure to carry out a basic responsibility was equally absurd. If a messenger -- State Civil Defense -- fails to foresee predictable problems in delivering a message, the failure rests with the messenger, not with others.
Will the CCRC’s report detail State Civil Defense’s adjustments to its SOP for communicating with the public? In light of the agency’s refusal to admit any shortcomings, that may be too much to expect, but it’s something we the people should be told. Using a phrase the Adjutant General can appreciate, this is need-to-know information. Failure to detail internal communications capabilities and enhancements will render the CCRC report less than satisfactory.
• Those Missing Emergency Sirens – As the Honolulu Star-Bulletin first reported, there are scores of communities throughout Hawaii with inadequate emergency siren coverage. CHORE observed on the same day that it was exceptionally bad judgment for the civil defense agencies to refuse to disclose which communities were not served by the sirens; it took weeks before those communities were identified.
Look to see if the CCRC report tells us anything about plans to fill those gaps.
• The CCRC and the public – A major flaw in this committee’s charter has been the absence of any citizen involvement. To be sure, members of the committee are all citizens of Hawaii, but as we noted here as early as October 18, 2006, no “average” members of the public were appointed to sit on this committee. And since the CCRC’s meetings were not open to the public, we’re put in a position to trust the government once again about what it’s doing to improve emergency communications. The co-chairs, by the way, are two advisors to the Governor and the Adjutant General; CHORE’s suggestion that an independent chair be appointed to enhance the body’s credibility predictably went nowhere.
It strikes us as truly amazing that a body meant to improve communications to the public has never asked members of the public to participate. Equally bewildering has been the news media’s hands-off attitude about this committee, which after all is supposed to be improving how we citizens are informed about life-threatening emergency conditions. Some meetings produced no media coverage whatsoever. To their credit, some journalists who were invited to sit on the committee withdrew when they realized they’d be in a conflict of interest – in essence, making news instead of covering it.
If the CCRC keeps to its announced schedule, its report will be open to public examination on Saturday, October 13th and presumably will receive newspaper coverage the next day. Whether the committee will finally provide the public an opportunity to comment on those proposals in an open hearing remains – as the editorials so often say – to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
MISSION: To Ensure the Lahaina Fire Tragedy Will Be the Last Time Hawaii Emergency Management so Poorly Serves the Public
The cause of the August 2023 wildfire that destroyed Lahaina, Maui and killed at least 101 residents is still unknown at this writing. What ...
