Accompanied by his wife and three children, Secretary of Energy Federico Pena announced his resignation Monday for personal and family reasons.

"There is never a perfect time for a decision like this, but I believe that after five and a half years as a member of the Clinton Cabinet, that the time is now," he said.

Pena called his work with the department "challenging and exhilarating" and said that he was truly impressed by his co-workers who journeyed with him in making the nation more energy efficient. "It has been an extraordinary honor and privilege to serve in an administration that is accomplishing so much for the American people and let me ask all of the Department of Energy team members to keep focused on our priorities," said Pena.

Pena said he has made no plans for his professional future after he officially steps down on June 30. A complete transcript of the remarks is available from Federal News Service.

Comment: Mr. PASSENGER GETTING OFF THE TITANIC at Southampton??

-- Raja Raaman (r4518z@email.sps.mot.com), April 07, 1998

Answers

Could it also be possible that after over 7 years as a cabinet-level member of the administration (most as Secretary of Transportation, not Energy) that he just wanted a change of scenery, or perhaps a job where he didn't have a reporter's microphone shoved in his face twice a day? Maybe he no longer wanted to subject his three young children, at least two of which have been born since he first joined Clinton's cabinet, to the rigors/dangers/hassles of life as the offspring of a highly public figure, Hmm?

Have we really reached the point with the Y2K discussion that we are automatically looking for deamons under every bush and ulterior motives for every action?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 08, 1998.

I saw Pena doing a live interview on CNBC today. He said he thought it would be a good idea to explore alternate energy sources...ie, wind, solar.(why now?...never heard that one before) I think it would be a better idea to plug the hole in the Titanic with gum!

-- Gail (jmt@students.wisc.edu), April 08, 1998.

Every Sec. of Energy since the Dept. of Energy began (under Carter, I think) has advocated investigating wind and solar energy. It's part of the job. They have the "solar and wind" power mantra stamped onto their souls when they take the job and it tends to stick around even after they leave Washington.

If you want more info on the work that the Energy Dept. has been doing in this area, poke around the Texas Tech University web site (www.texastech.edu). I don't know if they are still working on it, but when I was a student there in the early '80s they were working with some limited sucess on a commercial solar power site in Crosbyton, Texas. The research was funded by, you guessed it, The U.S. Department of Energy. (Come to think of it, the Mechanical Engineering Dept. may have been working on some wind power stuff for the Feds too. I don't really remember.)

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 08, 1998.

By the way Gail, I tend to think you are right about the gum and Titanic bit. A awful lot of money and effort has been spent on both Solar and Wind research with very little significant gain. It makes me begin to wonder if solar and wind energy is really going to ever be practical.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 08, 1998.

I have never ONCE heard this administration utter one word about alternate energy until yesterday. NEVER! I had never even seen Federico Pena until he announced his resignation. Pena must have gotten sick of rearranging deck chairs!

-- Gail (jmt@students@wisc.edu), April 09, 1998.

So Gail, are you saying that you are an avid follower of the pronouncements and policies of one of the newest (and smallest) of the cabinet level departments? Are you really surprised that you haven't seen or heard a lot from the Secretary of that department, a man who has only held the job a few months? Otherwise, it really isn't surprising that you haven't heard the administration talk about alternative energy sources.

Finding cleaner, more efficient ways to manage energey is a basic function of the department in question. To say that you haven't heard the Energy Department talk about alternative energy sources is like saying you haven't heard the Defense Department talk in general terms about needing to defend the country, or the Education Department say that it really needs to find better ways to educate America's children. It's such a basic part of the mission that it's sort of assumed that the listening audience knows it's there.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 09, 1998.

Paul, How stupid of me! You are right! Why would I expect to hear about what has been happening at the DOE? Why would I expect to hear anything other than the garbage that has been spewing out of Washington lately? I never heard of the past two CIO's at the IRS until they jumped off the ship. I guess we just have to sit around and wait for resignations before any of these people are allowed to talk.

-- Gail (gmt@students.wisc.edu), April 09, 1998.

Gail, don't get defensive on me. Let me try to add to my previous posting in order to clarify the point.

Governemnt agencies are a perpetual fountain of information. Press releases, policy statements, rulings, etc. come venting out of them at a tremendous rate. Hundreds of pages of policy documents and press releases a day, even for the samller, "quieter" departments like Energy.

The printed press has only a limited amount of paper that they can print and deliver each day/week/month, so they have to pick and choose what they relay to us. The broadcast media has even more intense limitations on the volume of information they present. Therefore, we have to understand that we are seeing only a microscopic slice of the total output of the government. If you expect to see a larger slice (i.e. find out about the alternative energy research policies and directions for Energy) then you have to go get the information for yourself. The media simply can't present it all to you.

My intent was to ask if you had, in fact, done this and that if the answer was "no" then perhaps you shouldn't be too surprised that you hadn't ever heard about these activities or policies before. I certainly meant no offense, and I apologize for that which was taken.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 10, 1998.

Paul, I could not agree more. I have to find out that which is not presented by the mainstream media. An excellent example of that is Y2K. I've been following this story now for almost a year on the internet where most of the information is available. I feel reasonably assured that enough evidence has been presentd (so much so that I can barely keep up with it anymore) to lead me to believe that we are headed for trouble. I can't depend on my government for any credible information about this issue, nor can I depend on the the nightly news, CNN, FOX or any of the other networks. For some reason they just don't find this as interesting as Monica OR, they are just plain stupid! I'd have to go with stupid!

-- Gail (gmt@students.wisc.edu), April 10, 1998.

This is a bit off track, but I'll give a third option for the news media: It's not that they care more about Clinton's sex life than we do, or that they are so stupid that they only understand sex and not Y2K. It's worse.

They think *we* care more about Clinton's sex life and that *we* are so stupid we understand sex but not Y2K. With the exception of an ever-shrinking number of journalists working at an ever shrinking number of media outlets, the press as a whole is coming to regard the general populace as drooling, sex-crazed bufoons who can't handle any subject requiring thought or analysis. Of course, the behaviour of the populace as a whole might lead one to believe that, but that's a story for another day...

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 10, 1998.

Gail and Paul -- Have just discovered this site and read with interest your discussions here. This is NOT intended to be a negative reference to anyone, but don't rats know enough to jump a sinking ship? Of course.

I believe the Y2K iceburg looming in the mist ahead of us is very real, and it only remains to be seen what damage will ensue. It could be of biblical proportions.

Another possible explanation for the 'stupid' media coverage or the 'public's understanding of sex affairs, but not Y2K affairs', is something I just heard today from a most reliable source. The officers, directors and CEO's of publicly-held companies have had a "gag" put on them by their lawyers. The legal ramifications and responsibilities could sink a thousand ships--stretched from Southamption to Wall Street.

You might find this interesting: Canada went on full "Red Alert" last Friday concerning the Y2K problem. They apparently have no other priority for the next 629 days. Our people are saying, "Not to worry, we're working on it!" I've interested in all of this for 6-7 months, and have heard no real 'warnings' from our officials--only from concerned individuals. Hmmmm?

I heard Mr. Yourdon tell a radio interviewer that "The Iron Triangle for top priority 'fixes' for Y2K are Banking, Utilities and Telecommunications." I would add one more -- Transportation. That acronym spells BUTT, and I for one am getting off mine, and no family, friend, or foe, for that matter, will go uninformed of Y2K any longer. Since I took this approach, I'm appalled at the lack of information out there -- and these are retired university people, college students, car dealers, bankers, doctors, you-name-it! What is with this??

-- Melba Hale (mjhale@usa.net), April 10, 1998.

Melba: I am glad to hear that Canada is going full bore on this problem. I fear it may be too late. I have been reading the "Electronic Telegraph" from the UK. It seems Tony Blair has finally gotten off the dime. I suggest you get their web page and check the archives. England is even thinking about training their prisoners to do remidiation work.

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), April 11, 1998.

Melba, I have suspected for a long time there is a "gag" order out there about Y2K. Can you imagine what would happen if people were told that their money could be at risk? Tony Blair issued an order to train 20,000 people to learn computer code by next April. Would you want these people working on your system? The computer programmers here at the university don't even understand most of the code. I think Blair is blowing hot air, but at least he is bringing attention to the problem. Here is one of the best sites I have found for keeping up with what is going on around the world. This website is updated daily. It has news stories about Y2K from around the world. http://www.year2000.com/y2karticles.html

-- Gail (gmt@students.wisc.edu), April 11, 1998.

Melba, I like your 'get off your butt attitude' regarding Y2K. I think that's one thing that is missing right now at the grassroots level (at least in MY town). I started raising consciousness locally starting about two weeks ago, and it's been more like raising the dead! I get anything from blank stares, to noncommittal assent, to outright hostility and defiance. I think Canada is doing the right thing by going on Red Alert. My question to anyone who has an opinion: what can we do to get our communities, states and the U.S. in gear? Has anything in particular worked for anyone?

-- Rahn Payne (rahnp@txk.com), April 11, 1998.

Raja, How about this for 'jumping ship.' Just recently learned that the DOD's top five IT Managers all took early retirement at the SAME time. This seems to be happening more and more -- really isn't too hard to understand. These people are in an absolutely untenable NO-WIN situation.

Gail, thanks for the site recommendation -- I like it. Our money IS at risk as I'm sure you're aware! Even if our bank assures us they're compliant and ready, what about all the computers they link to around the world? One glitch corrupts the whole system! It's going to be chaos. We'd better think carefully -- gold will spend or barter, ATM cards won't.

Rahn, I hear you! Keep pushing through their fog....maybe they'll thank you one day. Uninformed people don't have many decisions to make though, do they? Certainly not the same as those of us who KNOW a little more about this whole mess -- which could be apocalyptic.

-- Melba Hale (mjhale@usa.net), April 12, 1998.

Melba, Where did you hear about the DOD managers? I have been watching various businesses and their top people to see if anyone is making "contingency" plans for themselves, but nothing really yet. The closest I have seen is the former medical examiner and his wife, a lead prosecutor for the state of Iowa have quit their jobs to move to Montana. Hmmmm.

-- Rebecca Kutcher (kutcher@pionet.net), April 12, 1998.

This has also been an interesting thread to watch during the past week, though it seems to have strayed from the original question of why Secretary Pena decided to resign from his position.

The sad thing is that many of us have become so disillusioned with politicians that we tend not to believe their publicly-stated reasons for resignations. If you're interested in this theme, take a look at the April 12th edition of the New York Sunday Times, which discusses a number of other resignations taking place in political circles -- none of which (with the possible exception of Mr. Pena, as noted in this discussion thread) seem to be related to Y2K in any way, but many of which seem to be for reasons other than the publicly stated reason.

Someone asked, in the midst of this thread, about other Y2K-related resignations in high Federal positions. FWIW: the CIO of the IRS (Arthur Gross) resigned in mid-February, as did the top 3 Y2K people at DoD, as did the top Y2K person at FAA. There is some speculation that the timing was related to the Feb 15th deadline for delivering Y2K status reports to OMB, but there is no confirmation of this.

I personally believe that we'll see a lot more of this in the coming months, and that a similar wave of resignations of CIO's and outside Directors will take place in the private sector. The reason is simple: no matter how good a job you think you're doing, and no matter how confident you may be of the organization's Y2K success, the reality is that lawsuits will be filed, blame will be apportioned, and fingers will be pointed at high-level officials. Most worrisome is the high likelihood that Directors & Officers' liability insurance policies will have a Y2K exclusion when they're renewed in 1999, which means that directors and officers of publicly-traded firms face the prospect of personal liability in Y2K class-action and stockholder lawsuits.

-- Ed Yourdon (yourdon@worldnet.att.net), April 12, 1998.

Paul, there are over 144,000 journalists working for over 40,000 media outlets - print and electronic - in this country. I don't have a clue as to how you arrived at your characterization of this crowd empirically. I deal with dozens of these men and women from coast to coast every month and have reached a very different set of conclusions. Most of the younger ones and many of the the boomer generation are ignorant of history, philosophy, economics, politics, international relations and technology. Most of them are lazy and rely on press releases which they rewrite. With only a tiny sliver of exceptions, they move in consensual flocks and bleat in the same few keys. The levels of know-it-all personal superiority is too often astoundingly unjustified. The thin veneers of post-modern cynicism and deja vu skepticism is a pervasive mental rash. Most Senior Editors are too old to be comfortable with technology and many detest both the Internet and computers. I would love to know what studies - statistical or anecdotal - you are drawing on to be asserting such grand "this is the way it is" generalizations.

I consider the question of the media and its y2k analysis (or lack thereof) to be too centrtal to pass by your journalistic judgments without comment.

-- Victor Porlier (vporlier@aol.com), April 12, 1998.

Well Victor, I would probably refer you to my father the TV executive who came up through the ranks of TV news, or my mother the professional journalist, or my sister the attorney for several large news organizations, or any of the hundreds of their friends and collegues in the business, many of whom I keep in touch with as to where I learned anything about the news media. In a few minutes I can probably put you in touch with someone I know at around twenty local papers of various sizes (including the NY Times and the Boston Globe) and people in two of the three three major braodcast network news organizations.

As for the sorry state of the current media: I agree with you, but apparently for different reasons. Too many people in that business are taking the easy way out by selling tabloid sensationalism rather than real news, and wondering why people don't respect them anymore. The consultant who tells the anchors how to dress, to shorten stories, and to play down to the sorry ignorant masses has taken over the news business, and the journalists with the integrety to push a story and find out details below the surface of a story are fading into history as footnotes.

How does this relate to Y2K? My guess (and it's only a guess) is that these folks will jump all over Y2K and present it in, to be honest, much the same light that many here are painting it: a hopeless disaster that will mean the end of the world at the stroke of midnight, 1/1/200. That will happen way too late to have ay real effect other than panic people.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 12, 1998.

Paul. fine I'll take you up on your offer of 20 newspaper and 2 network personally known leads. E-mails or phone #s will do. I'll pose your understanding to them as to how you believe they view the American masses (quoting you from this bb accurately), seek their views of the most probable implications Y2K given current data, as well as their own evaluations of their collegues inprint and electronic journalism.

Thanks for the offer and the leads.

-- victor Porlier (vporlier@aol.com), April 12, 1998.

Paul, you refer to "the sorry ignorant masses." The only sorry ignorant masses I can think of are those reporters who run around like sheeple trying to scoop up the latest pile of dirt! I don't know of anyone who is not totally fed up it. It's going to be something when the mainstream media gets their teeth into the Y2K story. Gee, I wonder if Janet Reno will have to appoint a Special Prosecuter to find out what happened!

-- Gail (gmt@students.wisc.edu), April 13, 1998.

On the press from the right by Emmett Tyrell (American Spectator), "Washington, alas, can only focus on one story at a time. And so it focuses on boobs: Monica, her pompous lawyer William Ginsburg, and Sidney Blumenthal and his scourge of private investigators."

From the left by John Judis (American Prospect) on the Bill/Monica coverage, "There are multiple reasons why the press behaved so shamelessly," but the main one is "the abdication by media owners, publishers, top editors, and bureau chiefs of the leadership role they once played."

Two additional journalist Insider viewpoints as grist for this bb's press evaluation mill.

-- Victor Porlier (vporlier@aol.com), April 13, 1998.

Gail:

When the Prez can refer to the American public as, "Joe six pac" with impunity, we deserve the title. As long as they give us "Bread and Games" we are content. I am a little bit ashamed of us. It is un-cool to get riled up about anything. Our "leaders" know that and use it. Perhaps the media reporters are not so dumb. They know what sells newspapers now days. (I meant TV time) who reads a newspaper anymore?

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), April 13, 1998.

Bill, I read many newspapers and various other publications. If I had to depend on Dan Rather for information I wouldn't be as smart as I am. :)

-- Gail (gmt@students.wisc.edu), April 13, 1998.

Victor, rather than have you alienate my family's friends and business associates in a quest to show how stupid my opinions are, I'll give you another method: I'll follow your suggestion and gather a small bit of quantatative evidence, analyze it, and suggest further research.

Hypothosis: There is a trend in today's media toward sensationalism and away from substance. There is also a trend towards oversimplification of the issues presented, perhaps in an attempt to "talk down" to the masses.

Sample Data: To demonstrate method, select a single data point from one of the largest media vendors in the world, a man who's principal assest's name attempts to portray it as a beacon of information: Rupert Murdoch and The News Corporation. His outlets in the Boston area include (but are not limited to) the Boston Herald, one of the two major daily newspapers. As it is the place where the most important and interesting stories are to be placed, and as it was the day that the Pulitzer prizes were announced, we will select the front page of the April 14, 1998 issue to study.

Physical description (all measurments approxiamte): 11"x14.5" pages, vertical fold. With .5" margins, 135 sq. in. printable space/page. Columns of story text 2.25" wide. Number of stories: 2.

Lead Story: "None too Swift." Secondary headline. Story about tax deductions used by Jane Swift, candidate for Lt. Governor, to virtually eliminate federal tax liability for the years she was member of state senate. All deductions were legal and properly taken. No allegations of impropriety have been made. Total text length: On pg. 1: 3.25", on pg. 6: 17". Includes 6.5"x8" picture of Swift. # of paragraphs: 31, 23 (74%) of which are 1 sentence.

Second story: "Look out junk-food junkies, here comes the Twinkie tax." Story about Yale researcher's call for a "sin" tax on high fat foods and controls on advertising of such foods similar to those for tobacco and alcohol. Total text length: On pg. 1: 3.75", on pg. 19: 13.5". No photo. # of paragraphs: 21, 10 (48%) of which are 1 sentence.

Objective observations: Less than 11.5% of front page space devoted to text of stories, 38% devoted to photograph. Area of photograph exceeds the combined area of the lead story text segments.

Subjective observations: Two stories, little substance, neither should rate the front page. Pitiful percentage of the paper's prime space devoted to stories at all. Does a "lead" story really merit more photo than text? Since paragraphs should be expressing single ideas, does the twinkie tax story really involve more complex ideas (i.e. multi-sentence paragraphs) than the aspects of the federal tax code used by Sen. Swift?

While a single data point does not a study make, you should be able to get an inkling of how I have formed my opinions. All are invited to adopt this methodology and use it themselves, especially as they examine media coverage of Y2K issues.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 16, 1998.

Paul, whatever makes you comfortable. Would you consider giving the rest of us a preview of the questions that you intend to include in your personal survey or would you prefer that we wait for your final summary tabulations? If you will give an advance peek, then others of us might use the same questions with our more limited set of personal press contacts, and maybe even add a couple of questions of our own.

I think there may be a value to Ed considering a separate thread on "Media and Y2K Coverage" on this bb. We have moved far from the original theme of "Jumping Ship" and I don't think the discussion of mass media coverage should be continued here. Further the Media Conspiracy Question thread isn't what ai have in mind at all.

-- Victor Porlier (vporlier@aol.com), April 16, 1998.

I believe the phenomenon of "Jumping Ship" is quite Universal. In Hong Kong, I addressed an IT Manager of the local Transportation Company, who had a Y2K project dumped on him. The CIO just got "Booted off the Ship" due to his inactivity on Y2K. This was carried out by a Big Six firm who suggested him as the best candidate.

During our conversation, he grumbled "What do you think they are trying to do to me ? I am seriously considering of resigning. Luckily I am on the IT side, if I were to fix the operation and engineering, You wont see me here at all !!! I heard they are testing the operation by "trial and error". Simply purchase huge insurance package for the employees who are performing a test drive with the vehicles on the mid-night of Year 2000.

The conclusion was that the consulting firm is only doing the assessment, leaving remediation to be managed inhouse, if it worked out, the consulting firm takes the credit. If not then we have somebody to blame.

Although this might not be 100% true, I guess we get the taste of what kind of pressure is placed on these IT Managers.

-- David Wong (david@timeless.com.hk), April 19, 1998.

According to a news report on CNBC this morning, Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin, is thinking of bailing out! (just wanted to get back on track here).

-- Gail (gmt@students.wisc.edu), April 20, 1998.

Speaking of jumping ship...I see another rat has left!--------- "Right now we're in phase two, the assessment stage," said Chuck Cannon, director of public affairs at Denver International Airport, which opened in February 1995. "That's where we inventory our hardware, software and embedded systems and contact the vendors to see if they are compliant."

The Century 2000 Project task force is expected to continue despite this week's departure of Jim DeLong, the city's director of aviation.

-- Gail (gmt@students.wisc.edu), April 20, 1998.