Canton on Emergency Management

The L'Aquila verdict: Should we be concerned?

Bernardo De Bernardini, one of the scientists convicted of manslaughter by a court in L'Aquila on Monday. Photograph: Filippo Monteforte/AFP/Getty Images

Tuesday's blog discussed the conviction of a group Italian seismologists on manslaughter charges stemming from their assessment of earthquake risk prior to the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. However, in addition to the scientists, the government official who used the assessment to brief the public was also convicted. Taken together, this type of legal action could have a chilling effect on both the experts that assess risk and the public officials who rely on those assessments.

Security technologist, Bruce Schneier, sums it up well in a recent blog:

As someone who constantly makes predictions about security that could potentially affect the livelihood and lives of those who listen to them, this really made me stop and think. Could I be arrested, or sued, for telling people that this particular security product is effective when in fact it is not?

One of our principal tasks as emergency managers is the assessment and prioritization of risks. We base that prioritization on both the advice of experts and our training and intuition. While we hold ourselves professionally accountable for those decisions, the possibility of facing criminal charges even when acting ethically and competently would clearly hamper our ability to do our jobs.

And less you think, "it can't happen here," Schneier points out that there have already been attempts to bring civil suits against weather forecasters for erroneous predictions that resulted in death or economic loss.

So how do we defend against this? Well, you really can't nor should you lose sleep over it. Our job has always carried an element of risk and high levels of accountability. Your best defense is to act with the highest ethical and professional standards. The Italian case raises concerns but we would be negligent if we let it affect our duty to give our best professional advice to those we serve.

Warnings and responsibility: Italy convicts earthquake scientists

You may recall that last year Italy placed six seismologists and a government official on trial for providing inadequate advice prior to the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake that killed over 300 people. All seven defendants have been found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to an astonishing six years in prison.

As I discussed in in my blog last  September and October , the basis of the charges was not the ability of the seismologists to predict the earthquake as is popularly reported but rather the failure to provide adequate warning to the population. After a swarm of small earthquakes, the deputy director of the Civil Protection Agency convened a meeting of the Major Risks Committee to review the earthquake risk. The seismologists, who were part of the committee, stated that there was no reason to believe that the swarm of small earthquakes were a precursor to a major earthquake. The seismologists also stated that in such an seismically active area there was always a significant earthquake risk. At no point did they say there was no risk.

The problem occurred when the official translated this into a message to the public that there was no danger of an earthquake. Six days later, the temblor struck.

During the trial, the defense argued that the seismologists had given appropriate scientific advice as demonstrated in the meeting minutes and were not present at the news conference. However, the judge ruled that their failure to speak out and correct the bad information made them responsible for the deaths that followed. The defendants are appealing the verdict.

From my perspective that case raises some interesting questions about responsibility. While there is no evidence that the seismologists gave anything but scientifically precise information, did they have a duty to speak out when the official garbled the message? Should the official who claimed to be acting in good faith on the scientific advice as he understood it bear responsibility for the inaccurate warning? How much responsibility should the individual citizen bear for living in a seismically active zone and not being prepared? What about local officials who haven't implemented mitigation? And just what actions would have been taken and how long would they have been sustained if the warning had been more accurate?

These are not easy questions to answer and similar ones are asked after each disaster. I agree that there must be accountability for failing to adequately warn the public but charging scientists and government officials with criminal offenses is not the answer, except possibly in extreme cases of negligence. As an emergency manager, I rely heavily on solid scientific advice. Anything that inhibits or prevents a scientist from offering his or her best professional opinion is something to be shunned. There is a big difference between accountability and vengeance.

Earthquake safety czar appointed in San Francisco

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee

October 17 was the anniversary of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, still well remembered here in San Francisco. The 18th was the date of the Great Shakeout, a state-wide earthquake preparedness drill. With all this attention on earthquakes, it was the perfect time for San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee to announce the appointment of a director of earthquake safety.

This newly created position will be responsible for implementing a 30-year plan to reduce the City's most dangerous earthquake risks such as the soft-story buildings that failed so dramatically during Loma Prieta. The appointee, Patrick Otellini, is a veteran building inspector and building permit consultant and expediter and no stranger to the intricacies of the City's builing code process. From what I glean from the news reports, he will report to the City Administrator rather than the Director of Emergency Services, which, while not ideal, could actually increase Ottelini's ability to get things done by broadening his political support base.

To the best of my knowledge, this is something incredibly unique. Mitigation of hazards is something to which municipalities generally give only lip service. The appointment of a specific individual to drive earthquake mitigation with the attendant public visibility and transparency is a major commitment on the part of San Francisco and is to be commended.

Emergency Management Solutions Oct 2012 - Special Halloween Edition

Emergency Management Solutions

Zombies and Preparedness: Five tips for using metaphors in exercises and outreach

Download Zombies and Preparedness Oct 2012

Focus for success: A Tail from the Dog Park

Kona's best friend, Nala, is all about focus. She hits the dog park running, wrestles hard with Kona and some of her other friends but it's just a warm up. Soon she's looking for THE BALL. And it's not just any ball she wants - it has to be the specific one she has decided for whatever reason is hers for the day. She doesn't take no for an answer and god help any dog that comes between her and the chosen one. Normally the sweetest of dogs, she will attack another dog who makes the mistake of going after THE BALL. (The one exception is Kona, who can actually pull it out from Nala's mouth.)

Nala understands that to get ahead in life, you must focus on the things you want. Allowing yourself to become distracted frequently leads to failure. And you have to be prepared to sacrifice and fight for what you want.

However, there is a downside to being overly-focused and crossing the line into obsession. Nala has been disciplined and taken home early for fighting with other dogs. She sometimes misses out on great play with other dogs in her single-minded pursuit of THE BALL. She pays a price at times for her obsession.

So remember that while focus is absolutely essential in achieving success, it must be balanced with the ability to recognize and pursue unexpected opportunities. There's more than one ball in the dog park, after all.

Firefighters on motorcycles: thinking outside the box

This image of a firefighter from 1917 suggests that while the application is new the concept has been around for awhile.

When you think of first responders on motorcycles, you almost always think of police officers. But firefighters? It goes against tradition. Yet this is just what is happening across the country in major metropolitan areas where fire departments are rethinking how they provide services.

While the motorcyles are equipped with fire extinguishers, the primary purpose of these teams of firefighters is rapid medical response and reconnaissance. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue was able to cut response time from seven minutes to as low as three. A Los Angeles Fire Department team reached the scene of a brush fire within three minutes, beating the helicopters, and mapped the boundaries of the fire for the command post.

The motorcycles are typically equipped with defibrillators, medical supplies, a small fire extinguisher and a GPS unit. Their chief advantage is their ability to circumvent the traffic congestion that slows a regular response. Maintenance and fuel costs are also considerable less than regular response vehicles.

Still, going against tradition is a hard sell in this time of tight budgets. Miami-Dade's program was a victim of budget cuts despite it's cost effectiveness. Other agencies are having a hard time getting programs initiated. Nevertheless, this is a great example of analyzing a need and coming up with a creative solution.