more on FCC Commissioners Ask For Private Meetings

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Robert C. Atkinson" <rca53 () columbia edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:16:21 -0500
To: <dave () farber net>
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 () ISPNETWORKS ORG> <mailto:info () ISPNETWORKS ORG>
> Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet
> <CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM> <mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM>
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:58:42 -0500
> To: <CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM> <mailto:CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM>
> 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 () columbia edu
> 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 lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

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