Last week, the Vanguard showed that criticism of the city on the water rates for Rancho Yolo was misplaced. By having it set up as a multi-family unit and thus at the MFR rate, the residents have saved a lot of money over individually metering their units.
Nevertheless, and for reasons that are not clear, Bob Dunning, the Davis Enterprise columnist, continues to press the attack on this issue. He used a portion of his Tuesday column to criticize the council, arguing that their “lack of answers” were “startling.”
Writes Mr. Dunning, “The thing that struck me most about last week’s troubling story concerning the water rates the good folks in the Rancho Yolo Senior Community will be paying compared to the rest of homeowners in town was how utterly incapable council members were of explaining the rates to those directly affected.”
He added, “While council members were polite and generally responsive, the best any of them could offer to the Rancho Yolo Community was ‘let me check with staff and get back to you.’ “
The Vanguard has requested a copy of these communications through the California Public Records Act. Without these documents, it is difficult to determine to what extent Mr. Dunning’s attributions accurately reflect the exchange between members of the Davis City Council and Jerry Hallee and other resident of Rancho Yolo.
That being said, we are unsure why anyone expects a technical question like the rates at a specific property to be within the realm of information that is readily available to council members.
For example, the Vanguard learned that that system is not set up to be a single family unit. It is plumbed much like an apartment, with connections to city water on East Eighth Street and Pole Line Road.
Once we understand the way the system is plumbed, everything else makes sense, but unless a councilmember had specific technical knowledge, not of CBFR but of Rancho Yolo, there is no way they would be able to address it.
So, if their response was that they need to check with staff – as Mr. Dunning seems to acknowledge – then that is probably the right response.
As we reported on Saturday, the folks at Rancho Yolo, while having to pay an increase in their water rates, are actually quite advantaged by being billed at the MFR rate.
Bob Dunning on Thursday picks up the story, writing, “Rancho Yolo households will see their rates jump from $1.42 per ccf to $1.81 per ccf and a year later to a whopping $2.24 per ccf … the rest of Davis’ homeowners will see their ccf rate actually drop from $1.50 to $1.23 come May 1, then rise to $1.53 the next year.”
But the first caveat is that in order to charge at SFR, they would have to individually meter their 262 homes. The monthy fixed rate for that is about $4,540.46.
Right now, Rancho Yolo pays $236.26 per month for its master meter that serves all 262 homes.
The MFR rate, while higher than the SFR rate, still advantages of the MFR users. For if they were to billed as an SFR, the first 18 ccf would be billed at $1.23, then the next 11 at $1.37 and all of the rest above 29 would be billed at $2.33, far higher than the $1.81.
These are, as they say, the facts. But how Mr. Dunning would expect that the councilmembers would know these facts for this particular property without research is beyond me.
“One council member said flatly he ‘didn’t know’ why the rates were so far off base and another said he was ‘alarmed’ by the rates.” Mr. Dunning continues, “This would be the same council member who just several weeks ago voted for the very rates that now alarm him.”
But, of course, we do not know the context in which the comment “alarmed” came up.
What we do know is Mr. Dunning continues, “The council, in fact, voted unanimously for these rates, obviously without a clue about how they were derived.”
The facts, to conclude, are not in evidence. What we know is that the council did not know the particulars of how the rates are derived on this property. The quote is not attributed to any particular councilmember, so we do not know who said it, whether it reflects all of council, or, of course, the context in which it was said.
So it would appear that one word was lifted from a communication from one councilmember and used to indict the entire council.
Mr. Dunning continues pressing his attack: “I don’t know about you, but when I cast my vote for a city leader, I don’t expect someone who will merely rubber-stamp whatever the experts or consultants or attorneys come up with.”
He continues, “I want someone who is going to ask the hard questions of staff and consultants and attorneys, then be able to fully explain why they ultimately voted in a certain way … and never accept anything the experts come up with as ‘gospel’ …”
Mr. Dunning then continues: “Sure, if we’re talking about the difference between a three-quarters-inch water pipe and a 3-inch water pipe, it’s fine for the council to pass the question off to the city engineers … but we’re talking about basic water rates the council proposes to impose on the entire town … if they don’t understand the rates they’re voting for, how do they expect any of the rest of us to understand them? …”
But actually, ironically enough, we are talking more about the difference between the meter size than the rates in the entire town, as the key to this question is the plumbing in Rancho Yolo and why SFR and MFR are billed at different rates – those are technical questions to a specific property.
Mr. Dunning concludes: “The vision of experts and consultants and attorneys is necessarily narrow and focused … but the vision of the council needs to be broad enough to assess the advice and do what’s best for the city as a whole … the paid personnel are there to provide guidance, but it’s the council that should be fully informed before imposing a rate or a program on the public …
“In this case, it’s clear from their answers that council members didn’t have a clue about the rationale for the rates they were imposing … again, they voted unanimously for rates none of them could explain … the long thread of emails between the president of the Rancho Yolo Community Association and our elected representatives reads like a ‘Saturday Night Live’ skit … funny stuff if it wasn’t so serious for the residents of this cherished senior community …”
Perhaps Mr. Dunning would enlighten us by publishing the full exchanges. As it stands now, we simply have to take his word with no evidence, except a few quoted passages.
In a few weeks, when we have full access to the documents, perhaps we will have a better sense for the accuracy of Mr. Dunning’s attributions to council, but in the meantime the question is why Mr. Dunning is continuing to press this attack against Measure I and now the entire council. Unfortunately, that is one question that we are unlikely to gain insight into through an acquisition of emails.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I don’t know why anyone bothers to buy the Enterprise. Bob Dunning’s articles are just a glorified Op Ed. He surely won’t respond in any detail to any of the questions here. He will definitely not publish the full exchanges. But apparently there is a love fest in Davis, for “journalists” like Dunning and Keane and DeAngelo. They just spout off whatever they feel like. They do not follow the 5 W’s of their profession…
Yesterday’s column was predictable, but especially vicious. If he would have been writing in the Vanguard Dunning would have been yanked for making personal attacks. Good luck on finding out what’s motivating him. I’m usually able to write off his nasty comments as just his brand of humor. But, he seems to have completely lost it on this topic.
Attacking the messenger, again?
Yes Dunning did attack the messenger again.
I cannot and did not ready Bob Dunning’s column. But according to what is reported here, the question he raised was legitimate.
Consider two accounts:
o Account A is a single household of 4 that uses 100 Ccf per year. (25 Ccf per year per person)
o Account B is a community of 20 households of 2 that uses 800 Ccf per year altogether. (20 Ccf per year per person)
o Account A has one SFR meter.
o Account B has one MFG meter, which is bigger and more expensive than a SFR meter.
The fundamental question that Bob asked the council members, was: [i]Aside from the cost of the meter, [b]should[/b] Account B pay more for each unit of water they consume?[/i]
Intuitively, the answer is no, because Account B is already paying more for the meter. The water they use should be charged at the same rate regardless whether it went through a SFR or a MFR meter. This conclusion does not require technical knowledge of that community.
This same conclusion is used in CBFR, and that is they reason why after 2015, everyone will be charged the same rate for the water they consume regardless of meter size (the meter size charge is separate).
In light of this, I suppose logically, if Bob complains about the SFR/MFR rates difference, he is arguing that CBFR should replace the Tier System [b]Earlier[/b]. Because the issue he described is only applicable in the transitional period into CBFR.
(And since he also argued that CBFR is unfair earlier compared to proportional billing, I think his actual argument is for proportional billing. However, proportional billing overcharges steady users more so than CBFR. The argument that proportional billing would be more fair is mathematically invalid. It might make the bill appear more simple, but it won’t make the rates more fair.)
As I have written, unfortunately it is all the rate structure that is giving Dunning his ammunition and appears to be his driving motivation.
It is our desire to implement monetary penalties to force-motivate conservation, and our desire to help low income people at the expense of other people… many that are also low income people with larger families, grass and gardens… that is endangering Measure I.
If Measure I fails I’m sure many disappointed will point fingers at Dunning; but I will blame a rate structure that created a sense of unfairness regardless of how it was justified.
There are some in this town – more that we would find in most towns – that have a worldview that lends them to demand and push public policy that rewards and penalizes certain people they lump into groups as deserving of rewards or punishment. These actions resonate as a “good people” and “bad people” message/label. For example, with CBFR, low-income people (e.g. renters in multi-unit properties), and people that consume water below some baseline are “good people”. While those that own or rent homes with yards and gardens, and larger families, are “bad people”.
Attempt to implement something that gives the impression that you are labeling me a bad person, and I will have a real hard time voting for it… and frankly, it will make me angry. Hence, we have Dunning.
Frankly – I have never viewed this issue on the moral grounds in which you cast it. If we all agree that we want a system that provides for sufficient water for basic needs (which would include fighting a fire during peak demand), then there should be a baseline understanding of what those basic needs are. With that in mind, we estimate the size of the system we need to provide for the basic needs. Those who choose to use more than the basic needs contribute also to a need to size the system differently. I see CBFR as capturing this “resizing demand”. It is nothing more than that.
I am not sure what is so hard to understand in this and I certainly do not see a manichean duel of good people versus evil people in this. As for trying to help poor people… the simple reality is that because we have for too long neglected our water needs, the price is going up and going up fast. Thinking about those who might struggle with the abrupt rise in costs does not turn them into “good” people (simply because they are poor). It merely recognizes that a burden on people with limited means is a possibility. As I have said before, I am not ready to conclude that the changes coming are going to represent a huge burden on poorer members of our community, but I think it is something we should carefully examine.
what’s difficult is that people are intentionally trying to confuse people about. and this particular issue was not immediately apparent to the council and dunning twists everyone’s word.
Edgar, your calculation (while interesting and, maybe, accurate) is not at all responsive to the objections to Dunning’s attack, their ferociousness and their incomprehensibility .
What you call Bob’s “fundamental question” is not something like, “How much should an account pay aside from the cost of the meter?” It is: “Why do we have such uninformed, non-responsive idiots running our city as council members?”
I hope you’ll read Dunning’s columns. Maybe you have a mathematical way evaluating his approach to fighting Measure I. (If so, it might also apply to Michael’s strategy.)
I have to agree with Frankly that the rates have taken center stage. It bewilders me since Measure I would lock us into the project, but aren’t issues of how rates are structured subject to continuing refinement?
Should we really decide if we should have this project based on whether odd situations like Rancho Yolo and city parks (looks like both have been getting good deals in the past) or basic questions about tiering to encourage conservation?
As Michael says, he’s tied these cans (unease about rate fairness and charges of the city somehow secretly cheating on its water bill) to this vote. Of course, Bob and David already had attached similar cans by whining that the rate climb was too high on the front end for poor people.
[i]Those who choose to use more than the basic needs contribute also to a need to size the system differently.[/i]
Robb – with all due respect, it is exactly this line of thinking that I was writing about.
Who decides “basic needs”? Your opinion on this is shaped by your worldview as it is my worldview. What if those worldviews are different? For example, what if I think having water rates that are reasonable to support having a lawn or a garden… or that don’t require me to punish my six teenage children for showering more than their parents do?
We hear “potable water is a scarce resource”, but in reality it is not so much a scarce resource, any more than any other human-needed resource, like food and energy, is scarce. In fact, unlike fossil fuels, water is returned to the environment in a closed-loop system (e.g., there is very little water vapor that escapes into space.) Like these other resources, for water, there is only a cost associated with access to it.
I don’t think most rational people have a problem with paying more for using more. It is the seasonal adjustment and the tiers that have them up in arms. It is also a potential Prop-218 problem.
It is too late to fix this now. If Measure I fails, we can blame the rate structure. If it passes, I sure hope we revisit the rate structure and make it fairer.
A common per-unit cost for all users is the right and fair thing to do; but it would require you and others to get over your assertion that higher water users deserve penalties, and lower water users are deserving of rewards.
Okay Frankly. It appears that a fixed rate component of rates is necessary to get financing. As soon as this is introduced then the issue of how that is apportioned. We can disagree on the best way to do that but believe me when I say I am not interested in punishing you. I am open to reviewing the method we use to apportion fixed costs but if I have learned anything over the past year it is that no matter what we come up with is going to seem unfair to someone.
[quote]”It is the seasonal adjustment and the tiers that have them up in arms.”[/quote]In spite of this, I’m happy with my “yes” ballot.
In spite of Matt’s efforts to explain why summer months only make the basis, I still don’t understand why a full year of data wouldn’t work.
In spite of this point of personal confusion, I’m confident that the folks who have studied this whole project on our behalf have done much better at their work than the “no” advocates (based on all the information we’ve been provided by all sides).
On the other hand, the flip, anti-science, non-responsive, proved misleading and inaccurate, and snarky approach of the “no” leadership/spokespeople certainly has given me pause to ask simple questions.
“Which side,” I wonder, “has offered Davis a informative campaign that respects Davis voters?” “Which should we trust in a matter of such complications and costs?”
“I still don’t understand why a full year of data wouldn’t work.”
Because of full year of data doesn’t capture the peak demand measure which is driving the model.
Robb – Sounds like a plan!
However, I am not one of the punished people. I am empty nest with a small lawn, no garden and prone to taking quick showers.
My ONLY current interest related to my rants on the rates is to make sure that Measure I passes.
However, going forward… in my mind, the best rate system would be one where we are all only paying a common per-unit variable-rate, calculated on an estimate of a full 12-months of usage, that brings in the revenue to pay 100% of the fixed and variable costs to support the system. I understand the difficulty for this given that conservation can cause us to bring in too little revenue and will increase the per-unit cost. So, I am in support of the fixed cost component based supply line size (capacity size) even though some with the same sized line will use more than another. With a fixed component and a common per-unit variable rate set every year based on an estimate of use, there would still be plenty of incentives for families to conserve. And as conservation increased the higher variable rates would encourage even greater conservation.
Why can’t the rate structure include a front-end surplus (operating capital or line-of-credit) to float any revenue shortfall that would then be captured in the subsequent year rate adjustment? That is how REAL business does it. Any business that lacks operating reserves to deal with unepxected expense and renvenue swings will fail.
JustSaying wrote: “
I have to agree with Frankly that the rates have taken center stage. It bewilders me since Measure I would lock us into the project, but aren’t issues of how rates are structured subject to continuing refinement?
Should we really decide if we should have this project based on whether odd situations like Rancho Yolo and city parks (looks like both have been getting good deals in the past) or basic questions about tiering to encourage conservation?
As Michael says, he’s tied these cans (unease about rate fairness and charges of the city somehow secretly cheating on its water bill) to this vote. Of course, Bob and David already had attached similar cans by whining that the rate climb was too high on the front end for poor people.”
Thank you. I am just trying to do my job for the poor and middle class in Davis. The CC intentionally tried to separate the Measure I project from the costs and the rates, and some of us were able to tie them back together.
If any reader here is still confused, VOTE NO! Make the City come back with a proposed project that you can support.
[quote]”I still don’t understand why a full year of data wouldn’t work.”
“Because of full year of data doesn’t capture the peak demand measure which is driving the model.”[/quote]But, the peak demand must be revealed by the [u]several[/u] months that are being used. How would more months (say, 12, like in a year) necessarily hide peak demand? That’s what I don’t get.
Not that the conclusions or rates would be any different. The main benefit would have been to eliminate the confusion and arguments that the summer calculations have generated, however undeserved they might be.
Re: JustSaying
If you give me the title of Bob’s column, I could see if it is cached and I will read it. Otherwise I defer the judgement to you since I had not read it.
Re: Frankly
There are two pieces of information you need to know to evaluate whether a billing method is fair. One is technical, one is mathematical.
The technical piece of information is that the cost of the water system depends on the peak capacity. If you are a steady user who uses 20 Ccf every month (thus 240 a year), the system that needs to support you is much cheaper than that required to support a user who uses 240 Ccf in one month only. Even though the total usage is the same, the price tag for the system is different.
The mathematical piece of information is that in such a system, if you price everyone proportionally based on their consumption, the result is that the [b]steady user will overpay[/b].
In our context, the people who will be overpaying are you and others who have low irrigation needs.
Proportional billing would be unfair to you because the cost of the system is higher to support irrigation needs.
CBFR billing is still unfair to you because CBFR still has a chunk of proportionality in it.
CBFR does not penalize irrigation users. Irrigation users were subsidized by steady users in proportional billing, and CBFR shifts the rates toward fairness.
The only fair billing method I know of is based on sharing the same discount in capital. You can read more about that in the bulletin board section. [Bulletin Board] ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=996&Itemid=192[/url])
Re: JustSaying
The fact that CBFR does not look at 12 month data is a loophole of CBFR.
I’m not sure what you mean by loophole. I think the reason you don’t go 12 months is that you are trying to measure strain on peak use and the user who peaks in the summer and drops in the winter takes a bigger strain on the system then the one that is consistent year round.
The loophole is that when the system look at the peak period and charge the user on the capital cost based how much they use during the peak period, an entity who intentionally choose not to consume during the peak period would end up paying zero for the capital cost, yet receives the benefit of the capital.
But in what real world situation could an entity not consume water?
It depends on the ingenuity of the user. Both you and me might be too un-creative to know that.
The cost to fix the loophole is zero. It is just a few lines of code that computes the charges.
I’m just not convinced it’s a realistic problem. And you still have fixed cost anyway – if you figure out a way not to use water for six months, perhaps it decreases your drag on the system to the point where the meter costs is sufficient.
I think that is a difference in mindset in designing policies. When I decide a policy, I think in terms of “there are a lot more people who are smarter than me who might exploit the people due to my mistake. Therefore, even though I might not know how a loophole may be exploited, if I can afford to fix it, I will fix it.”
To exploit the loophole, it is not necessarily to use no water at all. A user who uses more water in winter than in summer is still underpaying.
No, someone who uses less in the summer than the winter is not underpaying because they are putting less of a load during the peak hours. Just like making all my calls at night would not be underpaying because the higher fee during the day reflects the total strain on the system.
The Supply Charge you pay in CBFR is not an operation cost. It is a capital cost. Once the system is physically built, whether is it used or not is already covered by the Use Charge.
Using your analogy, think about this:
A and B brought a phone for $200 together.
A only calls during the day, and the charge for each of his phone call is $1
B only calls during the night, and the charge for each of his phone call is $0.5.
A agrees to pay for his day calls and B will pay for his night calls.
Question: How should A and B split the $200 for the phone itself?
Except that the $200 is a one-time fixed cost whereas the delivery of water is an ongoing fixed cost estimated by CBFR.
We can add details to the analogy to make it more analogous to the water system.
A phone that can only do voice is $50. This is what A needs.
A phone with video is $100. This what B needs.
Together, A and B decide to buy one phone and split the cost. Since B needs a phone with video, they got the one that costs $100. The payment of the phone is spread across 12 months for $10 each month.
How should A and B split the $10 bill each month?
“If Measure I fails, we can blame the rate structure.”
This strikes me as being naive. The hard core project opponents have argued against the project for reasons having very little to do with the rate. 1) Woodlanders are a bunch of ding dongs that we don’t want to partner with. 2) The project is a Trojan horse to facilitate peripheral development. 3) Egads, a private company raping our community for profits? And such like.
Meanwhile, Dunning has made it clear over a nearly 2-year period that he will oppose any rate increase of any kind. Nevermind a steep rate increase will be required to merely maintain the system we have right now. Dunning has never even said what he would support. He has skewered the council for certain things only to skewer the council even more so when they have done his bidding.
The reality of the situation is there is a certain segment of the community that has zero interest in addressing community challenges. They have zero interest in engaging in a reasoned debate. They are extremely resistant to change. They have theirs and screw everybody else. The old way of doing things and the old leadership, will continue to solve not just old challenges, but new ones. Adapting, exploring, creating, innovating, and most certainly curiousity, are very dangerous and are not welcome here.
Whoever invented the moniker No On Everything (NOE) has it about right.
-Michael Bisch
I would blame the rate structure not as the single issue, but the one that pushed us over to the NOE win. I’ve talked to quite a few people that are voting no specifically because either they do not understand the rates and are fearful of their impacts on their family budget, or they understand the rates and think they are unfair.
Edgar, here’s the location of Dunning’s column yesterday: http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/dunning/bob-dunning-tell-em-to-take-their-money-and-run/
Just a touch of the flavor: [quote]”In this case, it’s clear from their answers that council members didn’t have a clue about the rationale for the rates they were imposing … again, they voted unanimously for rates none of them could explain….”[/quote]
Sorry about how the link turned out, Edgar. Here’s the title: “Tell ‘em to take their money and run”
Michael B., all of your observations are correct except that the rates, the confusion about them, the unfairness of them and the “fact” that the City supposedly pays zero are the things that stuck and still are the things that dominate the discussion as we’re voting.
All of the other “no” arguments you list have been offered and discredited and folks have moved on. But, that “certain segment” of our community still has the rates to harp on…and still is.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”I don’t think most rational people have a problem with paying more for using more. It is the seasonal adjustment and the tiers that have them up in arms. It is also a potential Prop-218 problem.
It is too late to fix this now. If Measure I fails, we can blame the rate structure. If it passes, I sure hope we revisit the rate structure and make it fairer.
A common per-unit cost for all users is the right and fair thing to do; but it would require you and others to get over your assertion that higher water users deserve penalties, and lower water users are deserving of rewards.”[/i]
Some thoughts Frankly . . . based on my attending four of the five Prop 218 Public Hearings, I completely disagree with your first sentence. It is [u]all about[/u] paying more. That was most clear at the Fire House on Mace hearing. The complaints were loudest and longest from attendees who were very clearly affluent.
Far more important than the tiers (we have those in the current rate structure) is the simple concept of change. Many people simply don’t care to even try to understand the new. All they care about is the fact that it is new.
Look at Dunning’s latest tirade. What is it about? It is about the traditional rate structure period from 5/1/2013 through 12/31/2014. The very rate structure that he RAMMED DOWN THE THROATS of the Council. So quickly he conveniently forgets his tirades about the transition to CBFR. He is an equal opportunity scold. There is no rhyme nor reason to his tirades other than [i]”If you are elected you are a crook or incompetent or both.”[/i] Actually, that should be [i]”If you work for the government you are a crook or incompetent or both.”[/i]”
Now, regarding price per unit of water delivered. The reason that the Multi-Family Residence price per ccf is less than the Single Family Residence price per ccf ([u]Yes, Gerry Hallee $1.81 is less than $2.33[/u]) is that a significantly lower proportion of MFR water is delivered during the peak months and/or the peak hours of water delivery. therefore, both the fixed costs and the variable costs of that peak water delivery are less for MFR consumers. So Rancho Yolo (and all apartment dwellers) qualify for a lower water price because the system has lower costs attributable to them.
Re: JustSaying
I read Bob’s column, and the main point I read was Bob thinks that the council members should learn from experts and consultants so that they can make their own decisions, not to defer their decisions to their perspectives.
Bob’s expectation seems rather normal.
In terms of evaluating Bob’s behavior, I think I will use the following rubric. It is a rubric based on intention as shown by the content of the writing.
Writing with an intention to…
1) Resolve a conflict, so that everyone gets what they want
2) Defeat a viewpoint that the author believes to be false
3) Defeat a viewpoint that harms the author’s self-interest
4) Defeat a viewpoint to harm the others
As far as I understand, Bob does not gain anything by intentional making false attacks against Measure I or the City. I think he genuinely believe that something is wrong. Errors are more obvious to those who encounter them. When an error is “obviously wrong”, the error appears intentional.
On the column, Bob separates the Yes on I campaign from the City Council Members. He talked about the campaign getting a lot of money, but did not associate that to the City Council Members. He only said that the City Council Members did not think enough, and gave an example of someone (Sue) who would.
Overall I think his intention of that column is at Rank 2.
His writing did not qualify for Rank 1 because he did not address the considerations from the Yes campaign and from the council members (It is possible that he addressed them elsewhere. I do not know.)
His writing is better than Rank 3 because he did disclose his standard, that council members should understand the issue before they approve something. In his standard, the council members did something wrong, that was bad for the interest of the public.
Edgar, did Bob talk to even one of the five Council members? Is Bob acting as Sheriff, Prosecutor, Judge, Jury and Exectioner?
Re: Matt
I do not know if Bob talked to the council members.
If Bob is acting as Sheriff, Prosecutor, Judge, Jury and Executioner, then Bob’s writing does not qualify as Rank 1.
Since there was no sign that he was trying to “resolve” it, I said his writing was Rank [b]2[/b].
Rank 4 is consistent with acting as Sheriff, etc.
On my rubric the difference between Rank 2 and Rank 4 is that in Rank 2, the intention is to protect, and harm is only done if it is necessary to protect. In Rank 4, causing harm is the purpose of the action itself.
Correct. That is why I rank it as a 4.
How do you justify that his intention is to cause harm alone, an not to protect anyone?
His words speak for themselves. They are all about being judgmental about the actions of others.