Frank Church on the NSA and Surveillance in 1975

Frank Church, on the NSA in 1975: https://youtu.be/YAG1N4a84Dk 

Without proper oversight of the NSA, "no American will have any privacy left... there would be no way to fight back ... the capacity is there to make tyranny total." 

Fast forward to 2017: https://youtu.be/dkoi7sZvWiU 

The technology in the video is at least one year old. Without the independent ability to determine whether information is true, independent media cannot exist. In an age of "deepfakes," reporters and editors must be part-journalists, part-tech-forensics, but only a few will have the resources to do forensics well. 

Furthermore, if journalists need security-level clearance to ascertain the difference between real and fake, what happens to well-intentioned whistleblower and citizen-produced tips? Numerous problems exist with the aforementioned scenario, not least of all the ability to disrupt honest, diligent journalism as well as any investigation. 

From Robert Scheer's They Know Everything about You (2015)

Journalists wouldn't be the only ones dependent on the government to vet information--so would local police departments lacking military-grade technology. In such a world, the only reliable sources would be high-level government-affiliated with no independent checks and balances. In short, independent journalism could be easily disrupted while lesser funded local governments couldn't realistically decouple themselves from federal corruption or mismanagement. 

The capacity to make tyranny total existed in 1975. Have checks and balances increased or decreased since then? 

Robert Scheer's They Know Everything about You (Book Review)

Edward Snowden started the transparency but Robert Scheer provides it in context. The inefficacy and profligacy of America's national security apparatus are worse than you imagine. Obama's presidency expanded the security state far more than anyone knew until whistleblowers emerged. A few quick points: 

1. American taxpayers have spent 500 billion USD for intelligence since 9/11. Scheer explains how almost all the programs didn't work or had to be scrapped. The main problem wasn't data gathering but connecting the dots to gain useful information. (Update: Such profligate spending is deemed acceptable because much, if not most, of the revenue is funding native-born American citizens, including military veterans, or allied military R&D. The calculus of government spending means if it costs the CIA 100,000 analyst jobs for native-born citizens to equal the same insights as one politically-disconnected immigrant Iranian, politicians are willing to look the other way.)

2. America's expenditures were useless because the government attacked the wrong problem (and the wrong country, but that's another book). When you realize most law enforcement employees are men, it's not surprising communication is the issue. 

Imagine analyzing a relationship between a husband and wife. Whom would you trust more to predict substantive behavior if the couple knew they were being watched? A person with all online data on both persons or a close friend who communicates well with one of them? 

3. Much of the government's post-9/11 approach to combating terrorism is being used for psychological ops, i.e., how to engineer consent, potentially even against America's own citizens. Also, if legal "rebellions" or dissent can be predicted through software and algorithms, why wouldn't such algorithms be used one day to block the spread of "dangerous" or dissenting ideas? Why not use it to predict and catch whistleblowers, preventing another Snowden? (By the way, do you see the connection between Facebook and facial recognition technology; Alexa/Siri and voice recognition technology; and genealogical profiles and criminal investigations?) 

4. One example: let's say you're critical of a defense contractor or the president online. Software exists that will scoop up your comment and save it in a database--forever. The question is whether the software can differentiate between peaceful libertarians and potentially dangerous anti-government persons (McVeigh, Kaczynski, etc.). What is the assurance, with black-box government funding and military contracting/outsourcing, of avoiding actions that will chill speech? What is the assurance an algorithm won't be fooled by deepfakes or digital spoofing?

5. We jail journalists in America. See Barrett Brown. 

6. The worst part about all the money we've spent is that these trillion-dollar systems can be gamed with millions of dollars. For instance, overwhelming spying software with useless or false info/code is a common intelligence tactic. Note, however, such tactics can be used by ordinary citizens against these same programs. If all of us began discussing bombs--as part of our goal to write interesting screenplays, of course--we could render useless much of the surveillance software in existence. (Foreign governments and hacker outfits have already discovered this flaw, leading us into a new era of diplomacy where no one knows the rules for a proportionate response to ever-escalating online attacks.) There's even a simpler approach: if everyone just shut off their phones for one week, so-called anti-terrorism surveillance programs (but not advertising programs) would be ineffective. 

Snowden tells an anecdote about this issue: one terrorist stool pigeon receives a phone call directing him to a location. On the way there, he's killed by a drone. Another terrorist receives a text with instructions on how to make a bomb. Upon ordering fertilizer, he's killed by a drone. A third terrorist delivers a handwritten note by bicycle with instructions on where to find explosives. He succeeds. 

 7. Every mid-sized American city in 2001 could have looked like Tokyo today if taxpayer dollars had been spent on infrastructure. Instead, we decided to spend our money on propaganda and surveillance software that can be made useless through simple cooperation, an analog approach, or foreign hackers. If that sounds fine, try a different thought experiment: imagine a country with police officers on every street corner who can peer into your home if a judge the police union helped elect gives them permission. Incorporate factors such as anonymous or well-meaning but incorrect crime tips. What are the substantive differences between such a scenario and current reality? 

© Matthew Rafat (2018)

A Land without a Crucible: How to Appropriate Cultural Collapse

In Trump's America, liberals have been reduced to 1) begging for money from the government, blind to the military-industrial complex's willingness to give them as much or as little money to keep them occupied as long as defense expenditures grow (one dollar for you, ten dollars for me); and 2) antagonizing every different-minded man, woman, and child on their quest to save the country. 

Warren Hinckle's characterization of American liberals has never been more apt: in 1973, he called them "horror[s]" because of their tendencies towards "self-righteousness and self-importance." (Another Hinckle gem: asked why he worked in conservative bars frequented by police officers, he responded if anyone could find a good liberal bar, he'd visit one.) 

Today's liberals can tell you about the Gulf of Tonkin but not why such an incident would be allowed to occur, or why otherwise intelligent people would feel compelled to engage in such maneuvers. Some might know about "domino theory" but not why it--and laying down dead body after dead body--would be considered reasonable in light of all available intelligence. I've heard the best minds of my generation rail against biased media (aka propaganda) using the terms "collateral damage" and "cultural misappropriation" without irony, captaining the English language to advance misunderstandings down empty harbors. Modern-day radicals are more likely to go apoplectic over a friend's recycling habits than wedding diamonds that, even if not bloody, destroy the earth while tilting local economies into de facto slavery. (Yes, Australia has done well with mining--it's the lack of economic diversification without proper safeguards that's the issue.)

Banally, America's intellectual malaise isn't intentional, making it harder to identify villains and vanquish them. I recently attended a Berkeley, California event celebrating books and, one might assume, critical thinking. Yet, every interview was the equivalent of a slow pitch softball game (no offense to softball players, some of the toughest athletes out there), as if organizers believed their primary job was to ensure audience members wouldn't face foul balls of complexity. Lesson: never choose interviewers who are friends or colleagues of the speaker. There's a reason journalism exists (existed?) as a profession--to create independence and therefore more freedom to ask difficult questions. Perhaps sponsors believed if they weren't nice, speakers wouldn't return, but anyone incapable of discussing potential deficiencies in his or her ideas isn't worth inviting back. 

Another lesson: whether intentional or unintentional, the result is the same. (Bonus, on war: "What does it matter to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?") None of the book festival's inanity was by design, or rather, everything was done to maximize happiness and to promote ideas. (At least they didn't require people to submit questions on index cards or limit themselves to two minutes.) 

At one booth, I discovered a book selling for 17.95 USD available for 9.99 USD online and asked for a discount. The vendor said he couldn't compete with Amazon because "we can't lose money on every book we sell." I responded that after building the online infrastructure, including the delivery infrastructure (initially subsidized by consumers paying for shipping), Amazon and publishers were both making money pursuant to an agreed-upon price split. It's true Amazon's R&D expenditures and forays into new areas (e.g., a mobile phone) cause it to report losses, but Amazon is no longer losing money on most book sales, especially not on the Kindle. (It does take a loss on some books like Harry Potter but gains brand loyalty as a result of its discounts and events.) Hoping to engage on a difficult question, I wondered out loud how brick and mortar bookstores could compete in a modern capitalist economy. Devoid of ideas, the vendor shrugged his shoulders and gave me a curt goodbye as his final rebuttal. At no point did he reveal any shame in opening the conversation with a misrepresentation. If we are living in a post-truth society, the cause is our post-humility culture. 

Former NY mayor Michael Bloomberg in National Geographic.

At another event, cultural appropriation was mentioned negatively, inspiring a well-meaning African-American audience member to explain the issue was rooted in economics. Meanwhile, none of London's black or brown residents would think to complain about their city's most popular food, the colorful chicken tikka masala. (It's as if the British have bigger fish and chips to fry.) Unbeknownst to most Americans and Europeans surrounded by dozens of foreign restaurants is a real-life government conspiracy: stealing the best people and ideas from other countries by any means necessary. Such a plot has existed since humans realized it was easier to steal than to invent, to build, or even to maintain the infrastructure--both physical and abstract--necessary to accept change gracefully. 

Stealing and appropriation occur because they allow Country A to gain the benefits of Country B's inventions with as little displacement or sacrifice as possible--at least for Country A. Immigration, something I've heard liberals support, is literally cultural appropriation personified. Unless the goal is to build walls or ghettos--something I've heard liberals oppose--the main reason different people should enter your hamlet or megapolis is so you can discover the best they have to offer until you're the lovely country of Indonesia but without the pollution, traffic congestion, and banking crises. 

Any other philosophy means you support using people for labor without any meaningful exchange of ideas, something Immanuel Kant warned us about in 1781: "So act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." (I remember when liberals told us melting pots and mixing were good for society, then they told us they meant we should be like salad bowls (healthy, with distinct colors), and now I think they're saying we shouldn't mix at all unless everyone pays for every idea they stole. I can't predict the next iteration, but I suspect lasagna will be involved.) 

Why we are discussing imposing informal or formal rules on what people should do or say rather than a more equitable process to capture or spur innovation, I don't know. Such discourse would require complex knowledge of different disciplines, along with sustainable funding mechanisms for new ideas that protect the displaced. To this end, I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Philosophy. There's a great future in it. Will you think about it?

© Matthew Rafat (2018)

"Our drones will never be called terrorists, and our guns will never defeat nationalism. We change the world by how we look at it." -- Pico Iyer 

Robert Scheer, Muckraker, on Ramparts' Warren Hinckle

I was privileged to meet Robert Scheer from USC Annenberg's School of Communications and Journalism in Berkeley, California on April 29, 2018. 

Scheer, along with William Hinckle, was one of America's original muckrakers. Some of his work influenced MLK's opposition to the Vietnam War, which eventually led to Daniel Ellsberg's whistleblowing. At Berkeley's Book Fest, Scheer discussed working with Warren Hinckle, lesser known than Hunter S. Thompson but arguably a much better writer.

On motivation: "What drove Warren [Hinckle] was journalism." "His success was a rebuke of mainstream journalism... [he was] forging a connection with the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement. We were the start of whistleblower journalism."

On mainstream media: Even the New York Times condemned Martin Luther King. Every single mainstream newspaper has [initially] supported every one of America's wars. In fact, "Martin Luther King's condemnation of the Vietnam War was [itself] condemned by the New York Times."

On whether Warren would have been more famous among New York's hoi polloi: "If we'd been on the East Coast, we'd have been unpublished!" [i.e., too much competition and too many existing outlets and power players]

On David Horowitz's criticism of Ramparts: "Fred Mitchell saved Ramparts... [you can criticize how we spent money but] we didn't pay most or our bills because we declared Chapter 11 [bankruptcy]... [In all seriousness] we lost money [not because of mismanagement] but because of the positions we took. We reported on the Six Day War [and then had pro-Israel Martin Peretz and Dick Russell, two of the magazine's shareholders, withdraw their money, 1 million USD, from Ramparts]. We reported on Malcolm X [when no one else was doing so]." 

Bonus: Steve Wasserman on Warren Hinckle: "Every story he told was true, even the unbelievable ones." "Warren was on the side of the little people... He couldn't bear hypocrisy." 

Technology Credit Union (Tech CU) Annual Meeting (2018)

All of us suspect financial institution executives are SOBs, but most of them have the decency to act dignified in public. Not San Jose, California-based Tech CU. The annual meeting on April 25, 2018 was a doozy, with Mical Atz Brenzel, the Chairman of the Board, getting angry while flubbing questions and President and CEO Todd M. Harris making comments that unknowingly contradicted his colleague. 

The spread for members, which will be noteworthy later.

I might have crossed a line by saying a "monkey" could have run a bank in the last four years because of record-low interest rates, but financial institutions, as stewards of our assets, are supposed to be conservative creatures able to withstand criticism, especially from their members. If you're part of an institution that refuses to stress-test its culture, you're going to have problems eventually. If you're part of a financial company so tone-deaf it decided to convert its member-based structure into a corporate banking entity without adequately vetting the move with its own members, humility ought to be your motto thereafter. Well, not if you're Tech CU. 

Regarding the failed conversion: "'Our members have voted and overwhelmingly indicated their preference to remain a credit union' ... there are no plans for executive departures as a result of the vote..." [Emphasis added.] In a nutshell, the same failed managers at the helm of a debacle so bad it will be part of an MBA textbook someday are still guiding the ship. They also seem convinced cultural cracks in their hull concealed by consecutive years of ultra-low interest rates are evidence of their own deft maneuvering. 

At least one of their own slides at the annual meeting indicates otherwise. One showed a loan-to-deposit ratio of 60% in 2013 that jumped to 87.79% in 2017. In other words, Tech CU, right after botching its conversion, might have taken a too-conservative approach with its loans, only to right its sails through low interest rates to a more balanced portfolio. 

In another example of hubris gone wild, Todd Harris said he was pleased with Tech CU's solar loan program, which has "12% national market share." I'm not an expert on solar power, but I know many solar companies and consumers rely on direct or indirect subsidies, and those subsidies can change overnight. In other words, the loan portfolio CEO Harris highlighted as part of his successful management might be its most risky. 

Update: seen in Singapore business newspaper, December 17, 2018

I was the only person at the meeting who asked questions or made comments. I mentioned being locked out of my ATM account while traveling internationally and being asked to call an American-based number, which anyone with travel experience knows is problematic. I suggested a simple solution involving secure email or secure messaging on the app. (How this team will screw up such a simple suggestion is an event I eagerly await.) 

I also asked why publicly available quarterly reports aren't available on the credit union's own website. Here's where it got really interesting, and by interesting, I mean shameless. Todd Harris told me Tech CU wasn't a public company and follows laws applicable to credit unions, which don't require making reports more accessible to members by putting them on its own website. 

No results found on gov website. It's a lil' clunky.

Let's back up a minute. No one is disputing these quarterly financial reports are available on some strange government agency's website. 

Found it!

No one is disputing these documents are harder to find if not disclosed directly on Tech CU's own website. No one is disputing greater transparency helps build trust, or that trust is important when competing for customers giving you money for safekeeping. Everyone agrees complying with a minimum standard in ways that reduce transparency isn't helpful to gaining clients or confidence. And yet, here we are, with Tech CU's management fighting to do as little as possible when it comes to transparency and simple convenience for their members. 

It gets even worse, especially if you, like me, believe banking culture is one factor in evaluating a country's ascent or descent. Most companies have rules relating to shareholder meetings that limit cranks, but they're written tastefully or at least in ways circumventing an accusation involving East German artillery. Here, Tech CU, blind to its cultural deficiencies, managed to outdo itself once again. Its rules for the meeting are so subjective and overbroad, they provide total control over any kind of direct questioning deemed unpleasant. From number 6 in "Rules of Procedure and Conduct of the Annual Meeting":

The Chancellor, er, Chair or the CEO will stop discussions that are: 

* irrelevant to the business of the Credit Union or the conduct of the operations;
* derogatory references that are not in good taste; 
* unduly prolonged (longer than two minutes); 
* substantially repetitious of statements made by other members; or 
* related to personal grievances. 

Remember: we are discussing a client-facing institution. If a member had an issue with an employee at a specific branch and wanted to alert the board in person at the annual meeting--the one and only time a year any member may do so publicly--the board doesn't have to listen. It could deem the comment a "personal grievance." Or perhaps it's derogatory or not in good taste. Who knows? Anything goes, comrade. 

After my final "monkey" and "low interest rates" comment, plus the fact the Bay Area had seen large inflows of private and public investment in the past four years, making it virtually impossible for Bay Area banks to fail, Mical Atz Brenzel launched into some angry gibberish. Still trying to temper her arrogance, I slipped in a question about whether any banks in the Bay Area had gone bankrupt in the last four years, to which she initially stood, jaw agape. After avoiding my question, she tried arguing banks don't really fail any more, they're absorbed into larger banks, which of course had nothing to do with my actual question. (I don't know of any Bay Area banks or credit unions requiring government intervention in the last four years to prevent bankruptcy, but if you do, please enlighten me.) 

Not satisfied with looking like a loon, Brenzel then argued lower interest rates made it more difficult for Tech CU to do well. I asked, "Are you denying lower interest rates encourage banks [and CUs] to make more loans [and therefore higher profits]?" It took her a few seconds to accept this Economics 101 fact, after which she advanced a spiel about Tech CU having to compete with numerous financial institutions in the Bay Area and still doing well. I let her have the last word, saying, "We'll agree to disagree." 

As I got up to exit the meeting room, a belligerent Todd Harris, a bowling ball of a man, approached and told me I was "frustrated." He continued trying to score points by telling me I mistakenly used the term "bank" instead of "credit union" in my comments. Pleased I'd gotten a Tech CU executive to mention a term relating to its largest management debacle without a sense of irony, I explained I wasn't frustrated, but we'd get to see how good he and the team really is over the next four years as interest rates rise. In addition, I told him his colleague can't argue that Tech CU's management did well because it successfully competed with numerous banking institutions, including public ones, while he favors a transparency standard far below all the public banks against which he's allegedly competing. As I left, I noticed employees bringing juices and mineral water into the meeting room, giving themselves a much better selection than offered to their own members. 

Tech CU's management didn't listen to their members in 2012, and they're still not listening. Worse, they're getting upset at a member trying to remind them to do exactly what a bank or credit union ought to do in an era of rising interest rates: be humble.

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2018)

Bonus: Gloomy Sunday (1999) is Netflix CEO's Reed Hasting's favorite movie. Consider the conversation below in light of Tech CU's Rules of Procedures and Conduct of the Annual Meeting: 

Schnefke: "But we must be careful not to stray too far outside the law." 

Hans: "Of course. But the beauty and vibrancy of the law lies in its flexible boundaries." 

[Two Nazis in Hungary around 1939 discussing their future.] 

SJW Group aka San Jose Water Company (2018 Shareholder Meeting)

SJW Group (SJW) held its annual shareholder meeting on April 25, 2018. About twenty people, mostly employees, showed up. Coffee, bottled orange juice, fruit cups and pastries were available but without paper plates.  

The big news is twofold: 1) a "merger of equals" with Connecticut Water Service, Inc. (CTWS), against which Eversource Energy (ES) counter-offered; and 2) Eric W. Thornburg's official succession to the CEO/President role on November 5, 2017, coinciding with W. Richard Roth's retirement. 

Before we get to the nitty gritty, let's provide some background. Private water companies are strange beasts, dependent on municipalities and their voters for rate increases or higher taxes for growth and infrastructure investment. The more you pay for water, the more money private water companies make, but their business model must contend with conservation efforts (you use less water, they often make less money); Mother Nature (droughts, mercury contamination, cleanup); and the replacement, maintenance, and acquisition of aging water systems. A private corporation doesn't need to manage a municipality's water supply, but as public sector unions refused to reduce long-tail fiscal obligations after the dot com crash, privatization became easier to sell to voters. Whether we can ensure corporations taking over from government agencies don't become just as corrupt is a separate question, one we'll examine below. 

We know greater attenuation between elected officials and the provision of an essential and limited resource lubricates the process for rate increases and other financial shenanigans (e.g., surcharges, including the following gem: "To amortize the under-collection in the Mandatory Conservation Revenue Adjustment Memorandum Account, a surcharge(s) per 100 cubic feet is to be added to the quantity rate shown for a period of time beginning with the effective date of advice letter(s).") When grandma needs a lawyer to understand her water bill, something's not right, and I say this as someone who generally favors small government. 

Before privatization, if elected officials wanted to raise water usage charges without measurable improvements, they would face the public's ire head on. Today, most private water companies hold shareholder meetings where only one or two non-employees attend, and PUC meetings aren't much different. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this apathy extends beyond something as essential as water. Overall public engagement has declined so precipitously, just 61.4% of eligible Americans voted in the national 2016 election and only 28.5% of eligible Americans voted in the related primaries, which resulted in the nominations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I'm no sociology or history expert, but when 28.5% of any group can effect massive change, it's not a question of "if" but "when" corruption occurs. What does this have to do with SJW or your water?

In 2016, SJW switched its state of incorporation from California to Delaware. I asked whether this change had caused any downsides. General counsel answered she knew of no downsides. Interestingly, from her perspective, making "it more difficult for... stockholders to elect directors and take other corporate actions," including frustrating or preventing "any attempts by stockholders... to replace or remove its current management" (SJW 2017 10-K, pp. 17) doesn't qualify as a downside. Modern corruption is baked into the system, aided by a conduit of overwhelming complexity, all the way from grandma's water bill to states vying for money. Muhammad Ali once said, "Your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see," and anyone wishing to be James Stewart going to Washington D.C. or even the local city council must first possess knowledge of intricacies so minute, they're impossible to feel or understand until after you've been punched. Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges, indeed. 

Additionally, while good executives don't need charisma, they do need common sense, and former SJW executive W. Richard Roth has the demeanor of someone unwittingly inviting another French Revolution through a lack of self-awareness. Consider his response to my question at a prior meeting about board diversity: I recall asking why only 2/9 directors were female and, at the time, 9/9 looked Caucasian. 

Gov unions may be corrupt, but do their executives get one mil in stock in one year? 10-K, pp. 62.

Roth said the company hires the best people, and when I followed up with, "You're saying in a county where about 40% of residents were born out of the country and at least 40% are female, the best people you can find are 100% white and almost 90% male? "Yes" was his answer, but at least he had the decency to look down after his brain caught up to his mouth. 

Today, SJW's board is still 2/9ths female, but if memory serves me well, it appears they've replaced the other white female with an Asian one. (Strangely, the incumbent female, Katherine Armstrong, an Aryan-looking specimen, approached me post-meeting and remarked she had ancestors from the Azores.) When I asked new CEO Thornburg about his plans to increase diversity, he delivered a spiel that would make a marketing expert proud. When I followed up about specific plans or processes to increase diversity without sacrificing quality, he finally admitted his "plan" was waiting for the merger to go through and essentially absorbing the other company's greater diversity. 

If that sounds like progress to you, you're missing the point. With attenuation comes reduced accountability, and the Roths and Thornburgs of the world do not have to give a damn about you. As long as they avoid massive mistakes such as embezzlement or mercury contamination that reaches the public water supply, they can retire fat and happy or merge their way out of mistakes. 

Even New Jersey's corrupt gov executives don't try for 2.8 mil in cash severance payments. And why is Thornburg, the current CEO, getting severance in the first place?

Remember: the complaint against "big government" was that they showed up and got paid regardless of results and also had the temerity to saddle cities with unpredictable long-term fiscal obligations. 

2017 shareholder materials, pp. 66.

Look at Thornburg's employment agreement carefully: 1) "70 percent of Mr. Thornburg's target equity awards are in the form of performance based RSUs which are based on a three-year performance period"; and 2) "Mr. Thornburg's target annual incentive cash compensation is 50 percent of his base salary starting with the 2018 fiscal year." 

These performance criteria, sometimes called KPIs, have included "$121,000,000" in "Capital Additions." (2017 shareholder materials, pp. 38) Does a city need a new treatment or water recycling plant? If your bonus depends on it ordering one, do the chances of objective advice increase or decrease? Also, because SJW is a private corporation, we, the voters and water consumers, have little say in the employment agreement's terms or KPIs/SLAs. Consequently, we've moved from a world where voters, including myself, demanded results to a world where we're getting results that may be against our own long-term interests. 

After exiting, I was taking my 30 USD L.L. Bean backpack out of my 2009 Hyundai Accent's trunk when I saw an African driver waiting outside in a black suit and shiny black SUV, presumably to chauffeur around SJW's executives. Meanwhile, San Jose's mayor, Sam Liccardo, can be seen biking around the city wearing a helmet, cutely nerdy in the way you'd expect from a Harvard Law graduate. In the end, I can't put my finger on it, but something smells, and it's not the stench of wastewater. 

Bonus 1: I was extremely impressed with Andrew R. Gere and Craig S. Giordano, who took the time to explain technical details to me

Bonus 2: Andy Gere kindly sent me the following email, which helps understand SJW's perspective. I've met a lot of suits in my life, and Mr. Gere is both an officer and a gentleman. 

Thanks again for coming to the shareholders meeting today. Your article touched on several topics and I appreciate the opportunity to respond. 

Regarding privatization, your article seems to suggest that San Jose Water (SJW) came about through some privatization effort. It might surprise you to know that SJW has, and continues to be, an investor owned utility since its inception in 1866. Before the notion of public water systems existed as we know it to be today, SJW incorporated to provide the residents of Santa Clara Valley with safe, high quality and reliable water service. That mission remains today more than 150 years later. We have seen and grown with the Valley from its origins as the Valley of Hearts Delight to modern day Silicon Valley. In fact, two of our employees have over 50 years of service, and we have also had generations of families who have proudly been a part of the SJW family. It is this commitment, dedication, and doing right by the community where we live, work, and serve that has and will continue to be the foundation of SJW. 

On the issue of rate increases and their approvals, cities and municipalities do not set the rates for SJW. SJW is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and they are the ratemaking body for investor-owned water utilities. All CPUC-regulated utilities go through a stringent and comprehensive process called a General Rate Case to establish water rates. A GRC application typically takes a minimum of 14 months to process and where dozens of CPUC staff, including those from the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, thoroughly review the application to ensure that our proposed expenses and capital improvements are just, reasonable, and necessary to deliver safe, high quality, and reliable water service. This process includes a public participation hearing, and I would be hard pressed to find another proceeding where such scrutiny occurs. 

Lastly, the water business is a long term business. Our infrastructure investments have useful lives of anywhere from 50-100 years and that is the perspective we must have. Just as previous generations have invested in the water system so that we can enjoy safe, high quality, and reliable water service today, it is now our turn to invest for future generations. This is not just SJW’s challenge but that of all water utilities in the US (check USEPA and ASCE water report cards). Doing anything less is just kicking the can down the road and saddling future generations with greater costs and less reliable service. That is simply not the SJW way. I hope this information is helpful to you, and I’d be happy to clarify or expand on any of these topics.

Santa Clara University's Law School Dean: Lisa Kloppenberg

The art of evading questions isn't hard to master; so many things seem filled with the intent to dissemble that their substance and character are a disaster. I apologize to Elizabeth Bishop for the aforementioned lines, but not to Dean Lisa Kloppenberg of Santa Clara Law School, who has mastered the art of the non-answer answer.

All across America, institutions have failed. I'd write that they "are failing," but the election of Donald Trump and nomination of Hillary Clinton reveals we are in a post-past tense, past participle situation. Local leaders aren't much better, but thus far, the public has been lulled to sleep by milquetoasts using federal loans and tax breaks (e.g., nonprofit status) to rule with ivory fists. 

We are now at a point where an alumnus who has given his alma mater one hundred or so thousand dollars cannot park on a mostly empty campus without receiving the kind of treatment for which soldiers on the East German side would have been honored. For more, scroll all the way down for the first email and work your way up. Castigat ridendo mores. 

Bonus 1: the references to Germany are deliberate and extend beyond Dean Kloppenberg's last name. Santa Clara University is a Jesuit/Catholic institution. From William Hinckle's If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade (1973): 

Bonus 2: to give you an idea of the low expectations for the position of SCU Law dean, Kloppenberg is actually better than Mack Player (yes, that's his name), the dean when I attended SCU Law. Dean Player, allegedly an expert on employment law, required his class to use an older hornbook under which he, being the author, presumably received royalties, even though a newer--and better--one was available. It's unclear whether Player, a Southerner, is actually inbred, but his visage and frail shape left me little doubt that some unholy alliance had to be involved for his existence not to have activated famines, earthquakes, and sundry tribulations. 

__________________________________________

Dean, 

Given a choice between an evasive, asinine answer and receiving excrement in the mail, I'd choose the latter every time--it's more honest. Your non-response response--the hallmark of ineffective leaders everywhere--misses almost every complaint I raised: 

1. By charging seminar/event attendees for parking while charging others nothing, SCU is seeking profit opportunity through arbitrary discrimination. Any institution that acts arbitrarily loses the moral high ground, an interesting point to note for a campus proud of its ethics center. (On another note, if you see me at a seminar on campus, I wandered in by mistake after using the cafe.) 

2. By charging alumni for parking at all rather than providing it free to those who can show an alumni card during non-peak parking hours, SCU is weakening ties between itself and its alumni--and therefore its own brand. (I'm not a dean, but I can deduce that brand destruction shouldn't be part of the job description.) 

3.  The campus security employee should have called his supervisor immediately when requested to do so rather than escalate the situation by demanding the alumni's [sic] name and license plate number. (Fascism comes in many forms, but it often creeps up slowly around manicured lawns until it drives away all dissenting voices.) 

I'm sure you have bigger and better ideas to contemplate, but I'm also certain a leader who cannot resolve simple issues or who avoids them entirely will not garner the respect necessary to take on meatier issues. Good luck. 

Cheers, 

Matthew Rafat, Esq. 

Class of 2002

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018, 11:11:46 AM PDT, Lisa Kloppenberg <lkloppenberg@scu.edu> wrote: 

Dear Matthew, 

I've looked into the reasons for the charge. SCU charges a fee to attend all for parking to attend events on campus and that after 5 p.m. the fee is $5.00. I'm sorry that this distresses you, although (as I mentioned), there is ample free parking available after 5 p.m. on the streets near campus. No money goes to the Law School from the parking fee and it's not something we can change. 

I'm glad you attended, and hope you enjoyed the Privacy Law event. I was glad to hear that our student organizers warned people ahead of the time about the fee on the event page. Registered attendees also received email reminders 2 days prior to the event including the parking fee (although if you registered last minute you may not have seen this). 

I realize that this won't resolve your underlying concern about why SCU charges, but I hope that on balance it's worthwhile for you to return to campus and attend select events. I understand that we did not charge or require any IAPP membership for SCU persons who registered, which is in itself a nice value that we provide for alumni. 

Best wishes, Lisa 

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Matthew Rafat <willworkforjustice@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks for taking the time to talk to me today about parking. I am not a dean or law professor, but it doesn't seem logical to bilk only law seminar attendees for parking after 5pm while giving others with similarly reasonable reasons a free pass for being on campus. 

Additionally, it doesn't make sense to charge alumni for parking on campus at all unless there is overcapacity due to an extremely popular event. In my case, I had to argue with the security guard and request he speak to his supervisor multiple times before I got any kind of response, after which he and his supervisor decided the "right" course of action was to take down my license plate and get my name. Here is the video: Santa Clara University: Charging Parking Only to Seminar Attendees 

Santa Clara University: Charging Parking Only to Seminar Attendees I thought SCU was a country club back when I attended in 2002. Now, it's even more so, to the point where a secu...

An institution's reputation is contingent on its alumni and how it treats its alumni. Your school is becoming a haven for people who follow orders and rely on connections and money rather than a place where wisdom and courage flourish. Please forward this email to Philip Beltran, Director of Campus Security. He and the rest of campus security staff lack public email addresses. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew Rafat, Esq. 

Class of 2002 

-- 

Lisa A. Kloppenberg

Dean & Professor of Law

Santa Clara University

School of Law

(408) 554-4362

lkloppenberg@scu.edu

LEARN LEAD SERVE

Update in 2019: in what may be a sign of Santa Clara University's assured decline, Kloppenberg has been selected as Dean of the university, with a law professor taking over her former position.