<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] more on FCC Commissioners Ask For Private Meetings

Title: more on   FCC Commissioners Ask For Private Meetings

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Robert C. Atkinson" <rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:16:21 -0500
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] FCC Commissioners Ask For Private Meetings

Dave:

One pernicious result of prohibiting more than two Commissioners from meeting is that the Commissioners' assistants meet daily with the staff writing the important decisions to do the "horse trading" and "make the cuts" that the Commissioners should be doing, but can't.  As a matter of good government, who should be making the decisions:  assistants, presumably speaking on behalf of their bosses?  or the bosses themselves?  The President appoints and the Senate confirms the Commissioners to make decisions, not GS-15s.

It would be great to have a daily open meeting without a published agenda where Commissioners could simply chat amongst themselves and with senior staff in front of the public.  After a month or so of getting used to the format and boring the observers to tears, the Commissioners might get comfortable with each other and have productive brainstorming discussions and debates.  Voting for final decisions would still occur in weekly or monthly meetings with an agenda, public notice, etc.

Another solution would be to replace a multi-member FCC with a single administrator, particularly for "telecom" (non-media) issues. Decision-making would be quicker and more internally consistent (less reversible). Other agencies that make decisions as important as the FCC have a single administrator. Why not handle "telecom" like the environment?  or airlines?

But with a multi-member Commissions and even with more frequent open brainstorming meetings, the final drafting and editing of an Order where the important "cuts" are made can't be done in public: the lobbying over the final drafting/editing--where the choice of a single word or a footnote can have huge consequences--would be even more intense (probably favoring the organizations with the most resources) and the stock market gyrations based on the discussions--which could go on for weeks--would be significant. Should the "cuts" be made by Commissioners or by their assistants?  

Members of Congress meet in private, as do appellate judges including the Supreme Court and all kinds of people in the Executive Branch including Cabinet members. "Deals" (choices) are made:  that's what government does.  I doubt that Congress, the Courts or the Executive Branch could make their choices without these private meetings.  The other branches of government make decisions at least as important as those of the FCC.  Why don't we trust the quasi-judicial/quasi legislative "branch" as much as the others?

It is hard to imagine nefarious "secret" dealings (or, for the skeptics, greater nefarious activity) at the FCC if some private meetings (with "safeguads") are allowed: the FCC leaks like a sieve as it is.  From my own time at the FCC, I have faith in that professional bureaucrats, who can be "whistleblowers" and can't be fired, have a strong interest in the integrity of their agency.  I also have faith that the opposing participants in proceedings will scream loudly to the press, Congress and the Courts about any suspected nefarious dealings--they do already.  And the press is always on the lookout for scandals and bureaucrats and disappointed supplicants know how to get the press motivated, and do.

Thanks

Bob Atkinson


David Farber wrote:

Life is toough in an open givernment. Much easier if descisions are made in
a closed enviroment. I think it would be first the FCC , then ... END OF
OPEN GOVERNMENT

Dave

------ Forwarded Message
From: Frank Muto <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet
<CYBERTELECOM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:58:42 -0500
To: <CYBERTELECOM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: FCC Commissioners Ask For Private Meetings

February 10, 2005

FCC Commissioners Ask For Private Meetings

Chairman Powell, commissioner Copps say open-government rules hinder their
ability to work together.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress should enact changes to open government laws to
make it easier for political appointees on the Federal Communications
Commission to discuss issues in private, two FCC members said.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell, a Republican, and fellow Commissioner Michael
Copps, a Democrat, said the law hinders communication between individuals on
the five-member FCC because only two members at a time can talk face-to-face
outside the confines of a commission meeting.

Powell and Copps, in a letter to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted
Stevens, R-Alaska, said they supported the goal of open government laws, but
added that Congress should change the law to let more than two commissioners
meet privately ``in appropriate circumstances.''

Otherwise, commissioners must communicate via their staffers, or through
letters and e-mails.

``These indirect methods of communicating clearly do not foster frank, open
discussion, and they are less efficient than in-person interchange among
three or more commissioners would be,'' Powell and Copps wrote in the letter
last week to Stevens and released publicly Wednesday.

Stevens could not be reached immediately for comment. Newspaper groups and
free speech advocates bristled at the request and said it would lead to less
transparency.

``It's basically arguing that it is inconvenient for them to have open
meetings,'' said Steve Sidlo, managing editor of the Dayton (Ohio) Daily
News, and chair of the First Amendment Committee for the Associated Press
Managing Editors Association.

``If you are going to have a transparent government that's accountable for
decision-making, that allows people to understand why decisions are made,
then you have to have open meetings,'' Sidlo said.

The open government law requires deliberations be public when ``the least
number of individual agency members required to take action'' are meeting.

On the five-member FCC, three votes are needed to conduct official business.
Therefore, any meeting of three commissioners, whether by chance or on
purpose, must be open to the public.

Powell, who is leaving the FCC next month, and Copps said it was an
appropriate time to address the issue because Congress is expected to tackle
a host of telecommunications issues this year, including how to regulate
Internet phone calls and digital television rules.

Safeguards could be added to the law to ensure a private meeting of three
commissioners would not ``jeopardize the goal of open government,'' they
said.

``Commission decisions are in some cases less well informed and well
explained than they would be if we each had the benefit of the others'
expertise and perspective,'' they wrote.

The purpose of the open government law is to avoid ``back-room deals and
mischief'' among public officials, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, chief
executive officer of the Media Access Project, a Washington, D.C.-based
public interest law firm.

``It is inconvenient to operate in the public eye, but it is a good thing,''
Sidlo said. ``Inconvenience isn't a good reason.'



Frank Muto
President/Ceo
FSM Marketing Group, Inc.
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
www.wbia.us <http://www.wbia.us>

------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
  


------ End of Forwarded Message
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/