Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBill Johnson Response to Bob Babjak1 Lori Kofoid From:Susan H. Brock <brock@clarityconnect.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2024 11:29 AM To:Lori Kofoid; Marty Moseley Subject:FW: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Bill Johnson’s response should go in the ZBA packets (along with the resident’s two prior emails on the topic). Just checking to make sure the packet is updated with these messages. Susan Susan H. Brock, Attorney at Law 12 Pheasant Way Ithaca, NY 14850 tel.: 607-277-3995 fax: 607-277-8042 brock@clarityconnect.com ******************************************************************** This electronic transmission contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (607) 277-3995 (collect) or send an electronic mail message to brock@clarityconnect.com. In addition, please delete all copies of this message from your computer. ******************************************************************** From: William P Johnson [mailto:bill@williampjohnson.com] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 12:14 PM To: 'CJ Randall' <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; 'Susan Brock' <brock@clarityconnect.com> Cc: 'Marty Moseley' <MMoseley@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! CJ, I hope all involved with carefully consider that a professional recommendation from other professionals, arguably an adversary, on LinkedIn or any other publicly accessible platform does not constitute a conflict of interest. True conflicts of interest, rather than mere inuendo and disagreement with inconvenient opinions, involve an unmanaged and compromised objectivity that facilitate inappropriate actions. As one of many possible sources of information on the subject, the Defense Acquisition University, DAU, provides training on identification of conflicts of interest to DoD personnel involved with financial responsibilities within the agency. DAU frames the issue with three categories taken from the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) in FAR Part 3 (Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest). The categories are (i) Unequal access to information; (ii) Impaired objectivity; (iii) Biased ground rules. 2 Unequal access to information. The information supplied by Verizon Wireless is sent to the town, and that information is posted to the town’s web site. There is no access we have to other information. That information is interpreted in light of engineering principles as to it shows and whether Verizon Wireless’ statements are accurate with respect to that information. Our reports are intended to vet that information. Impaired objectivity. The materials provided by Verizon Wireless were reviewed and explained in light of the engineering principles regarding wireless communication facilities. Just because a professional agrees with another professional’s opinion does not constitute a conflict of interest. Especially in the context of engineering review, if the conclusions do not match the facts then it is not difficult to point out error using sound analysis. Beyond the facts, it may surprise the lay person that engineering is not a “True or False” proposition. Engineering involves significant trade-offs between conflicting goals of operational efficiency, reliability, and cost of deployment. Engineers can disagree on the use of the facts in light of those and other objectives. Professional agreement does not mean there is a conflict of interest. Naturally, in the present case, the town boards are free to accept or reject any of the statements in our reports or our public testimony when taken in context. We stand by those statements nonetheless in light of our knowledge and experience with wireless communication facilities and the issues surrounding deployment in the last several decades. Biased ground rules. Our work does not involve establishment of ground rules – those are developed by the town’s zoning laws and procedures, published, and applied by the appointed boards under advice from their legal counsel. I hope those concerned will scrutinize my reports that show a different picture than selectively framed in the Babjak email. For example, until Attorney Brock clarified the “preferred frequency” meaning, if taken at face value our conclusion would have been on the face cause to deny the permits. Hardly what one would expect would happen in an actual conflict of interest. There are other examples as well. Verizon made statements to the effect that an area cannot be serviced by shorter towers or small-cells. I volunteered a contrary opinion to the planning board that, indeed, an area can be serviced in such a way but that there are technical and operational engineering limitations under present technology and regulatory constraints. I explained in some detail that the total equipment inventory for a multi-band cell site cannot be installed in a package that will fit the size required for a small-cell deployment. Small cells will not have the backup power capability of a macro site. Small-cells have limited RF coverage capability. Infrastructure connecting the small-cells on utility poles are subject to disruption by trees falling through lines, road accidents that take out utility poles, ice damage on the lines, and a host of other possibilities. Yes, small-cells can be used but there are compromises that may also have legal implications. I offer my humble opinion that it was actually not necessary for me to annunciate the information at the public hearings that it is indeed possible to use small-cells and shorter macro sites to provide RF coverage and capacity and, doing so, was contrary to Verizon Wireless’ goal to deploy a single-site solution. Again, not what one would expect if an actual conflict of interest existed These are just some examples. Ultimately, the final decision given the competing goals within the present application are under the final authority of the planning board and ZBA. In summary, I am trying to help the town staff and boards vet the technical information provided by Verizon Wireless to facilitate planning board and ZBA decisions regarding their permits and variance applications. While the materials can stand alone to speak to the engineering issues, the complexity of interpretations and jargon often elude very smart people who do not immediately understand the engineering issues. If engineering findings in our reports or public testimony are perceived to be inaccurate or misleading, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss them – especially in light of the recent email arguing a conflict of interest exists. Naturally an accusation of duplicitous actions is professionally offensive. The fact that people in the telecom industry know me and choose to voluntarily recommend me based on character, knowledge, and professional background is not a conflict of interest. It is an honor to be so recognized by my professional adversaries, who are also professional whom I generally respect. It is also telling that an arguably professional adversary would risk their own professional reputation with a recommendation to an unqualified and duplicitous connection. 3 Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Bill William P Johnson Independent Radio-frequency Engineering Consultant and Professor Emeritus | Rochester Institute of Technology PO Box 20263, Rochester, NY 14602-0263 Voice/Text: (585) 201-8744 Email: Bill@WilliamPJohnson.com Do not send any confidential information by any means without making prior arrangements. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The preceding e-mail message and attachments contain information that is confidential and may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges. The information is intended to be conveyed only to the intended recipient(s) of the message. If you believe that you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately by reply to this email. Unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message by other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. From: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 9:19 AM To: Susan Brock <brock@clarityconnect.com>; William P Johnson <bill@williampjohnson.com> Cc: Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov> Subject: Fw: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! FYI From: Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 10:01 PM To: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov> Subject: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar- looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page 4 attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in 5 coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, 6 Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services (the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network) A significant gap is not established simply because the applicant’s Personal Wireless Services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant. An applicant’s claim of need for future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of 7 multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct.