OMB Watch | Promoting open government, accountability, and citizen participation since 1983

Blog Posts of Gavin Baker

Standing Up for Credit Card Customers' Right to Know

Yesterday, the comment period ended on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) proposal to create an online database of customer complaints about credit card companies. Here's an update on where things stand:

We delivered more than 800 of your comments to the CFPB in response to our action alert. Thank you to everyone who stood up to support government transparency and consumers' right to know.

OMB Watch also filed detailed comments on the proposal. Above all, we emphasized how the CFPB's innovative proposal would benefit the public:

We applaud the CFPB's proposal as a thoughtful and innovative mechanism to empower consumers, improve market functioning, encourage corporate accountability, and uphold government transparency.

We also described some of the ways the database would help consumers. For instance, customers shopping for a credit card would be able to read about other customers' experiences and make more informed choices. Ultimately, transparency could foster competition by encouraging companies to change disliked practices or become more responsive to their customers.

Our comments also recommended a few changes to make the policy even stronger. Most importantly, we urged that the public be able to read a customer's actual complaint and the credit card company's response, which would allow the public to better understand and evaluate the complaints.

In addition to our filing, OMB Watch also signed onto a joint set of comments, spearheaded by Consumer Action and endorsed by 21 organizations, including the NAACP. The joint comments demonstrate the broad agreement that this proposal does right by consumers. We hope the CFPB will move forward expeditiously to turn this important idea into reality.

(Gavin Baker 01/31/12; 2 comments)

House "Megabus" Contains Modest Boost to E-Gov Fund

Late Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee released its proposed "megabus" spending bill, packaging the nine appropriations bills that have not yet been completed for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012. The House and Senate have been in negotiations to finish the nine bills before a stopgap spending bill expires on Friday.

The release of the House bill, H.R. 3671, brings the latest news of the fate of the Electronic Government Fund. OMB Watch has been working with the Sunlight Foundation and others to make the case for fully funding the E-Gov Fund, which pays for flagship transparency projects such as USAspending.gov and Data.gov.

The details of the House proposal are mixed. First, the unequivocally good news: the House proposal would preserve the E-Gov Fund as an independent budget line, retaining the E-Government Act's authorization and reporting requirements. Previously, both the House and the Senate appropriations committees had proposed to combine the E-Gov Fund with the Federal Citizen Services Fund, which might have resulted in e-gov dollars being used for other purposes.

The appropriations levels in H.R. 3671 are also partially good news. The E-Gov Fund would receive a modest boost, from the $8 million it received in FY 11 to $12.4 million. (The Citizen Services Fund remains essentially level.)

However, the combined appropriation for the funds in H.R. 3671, $46.5 million, is actually a slight decrease from the $50 million that the House appropriations committee approved previously. The E-Gov Fund's share of that $50 million would have amounted to $15.8 million, or $3.4 million more than the newest House proposal. And the number still falls far short of President Obama's recommended $34 million, which OMB Watch and Sunlight endorsed to best continue the fund's track record of successful transparency and efficiency innovations.

Nevertheless, in the current budgetary environment – the bill containing the E-Gov Fund declines by $222 million overall – any increase is remarkable. That Congress is now poised to partially reverse the steep cuts it hastily made in April reflects a growing understanding of the value of transparency.

(Gavin Baker 12/15/11; 1 comment)

Open Government Leaders Support Funding for Key Transparency Initiatives

OMB Watch and the Sunlight Foundation today released an open letter to the U.S. Senate supporting continued funding for the Electronic Government Fund's important transparency projects. The letter echoes the Obama administration's policy statement issued Nov. 10.

The letter calls for full funding for the E-Gov Fund, which pays for flagship projects such as USAspending.gov and Data.gov. In April, Congress short-sightedly slashed the E-Gov Fund by 75 percent, from $34 million to $8 million, drastically reducing the fund’s ability to maintain current transparency tools or develop new ones. The House Appropriations Committee has proposed a slight increase for the fund next year, but Senate appropriators proposed an additional cut.

The Senate proposal may now be moving toward a floor vote as part of the second so-called "minibus" of spending bills packaged with H.R. 2354. We're hopeful that senators will take this opportunity to reverse the cuts that Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and a coalition of open government groups called "penny-wise and pound-foolish."

In addition to the drastic spending cuts, the bill contains another provision that would endanger the effectiveness of the E-Gov Fund. Both the House and the Senate proposals would eliminate the E-Gov Fund as a separate budget line, instead combining it with the Federal Citizen Services Fund to create a new "Information and Engagement for Citizens" account. Although the same office in the General Services Administration (GSA) oversees both funds, they have separate purposes and authorizations. Specifically, the E-Government Act of 2002 created the E-Gov Fund and detailed its functions and procedures, including requirements to report on how the funds are being spent and what results are being achieved. These reporting requirements increase the transparency and accountability of the E-Gov Fund – but they might not apply to a new budget line not authorized by any law.

At a time when Congress is scrounging for every last penny, it would be counterproductive to cut short the very tools that shed light on federal spending and performance. Congress should provide adequate resources for the E-Gov Fund in order to give the American people the transparency they deserve.

(Gavin Baker 11/16/11; 2 comments)

National Archives Launches Initial CUI Registry

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) today launched the initial registry of controlled unclassified information (CUI) categories that agencies can use to safeguard sensitive but unclassified information. President Obama called for the registry in his executive order on CUI, which he signed one year ago today.

When fully implemented, the categories listed in the CUI registry will be the only labels that agencies can use to identify unclassified information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls. This will limit the proliferation of such categories. Over the years, the haphazard expansion in the number of categories has resulted in confusion as well as the creation of unjustified labels, such as "For Official Use Only (FOUO)." This, in turn, stymied public access and information sharing.

The initial registry comprises 15 categories, in addition to their sub-categories. These categories of information, while unclassified, are deemed to warrant safeguarding – such as storage on a secure server – or conditions on dissemination – such as limitations on information sharing between agencies. According to the executive order, CUI categories have no bearing on decisions about public disclosure.

Agencies are required to submit their plans to implement the new categories to NARA by Dec. 6.

That implementation, however, is unlikely to begin soon. While the initial registry lists each category's description and authorizing law, regulation, or government-wide policy, it does not yet list the safeguards that each category will require. NARA also has not yet determined how agencies will mark documents containing CUI, how long each category will be subject to controls, or how information will be decontrolled. Until those crucial pieces are completed, implementation cannot begin.

Nevertheless, today's launch gives a sense of the categories that will be in use once the new system is operational, as well as how the registry will function. OMB Watch will publish a more detailed analysis in the Nov. 8 issue of The Watcher.

Image in the public domain, via Wikipedia.

(Gavin Baker 11/04/11; 2 comments)

EPA Scientific Integrity Proposal Missing Critical Elements

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) draft scientific integrity policy is missing critical elements needed to effectively safeguard science at the agency, OMB Watch said in comments filed yesterday. The policy must be improved if the agency is to ensure that the best science informs policy decisions that affect the health and environmental quality of all Americans.

The Obama administration recognizes that sound, uncensored science is critically important to protecting our health, economy, and environment. Consequently, President Obama issued a memo shortly after taking office, establishing protections for scientific integrity and directing agencies to implement them. Unfortunately, implementation of that memo has been sluggish and uneven. However, there have been some bright spots, such as the draft policy at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which OMB Watch praised.

EPA's efforts have been more mixed. For example, the process to develop a policy at EPA has been mostly open: the agency posted a draft policy and solicited public comment. But the openness has been less than full-fledged, as important appendices and references are missing from the policy posted. EPA should be sure the public has an opportunity to comment on a complete version of the policy before finalizing it.

The content of EPA's draft policy is also flawed. The draft policy moves in the right direction but stops short of what's needed to adequately protect scientific integrity. Fundamentally, an effective scientific integrity policy must do two things: prevent political interference with science and protect the free flow of scientific information. EPA's draft policy is inadequate on both counts. As we say in our comments:

In general, the portions of EPA’s draft policy that have been released to date establish the appropriate principles for scientific integrity, particularly in striving to keep science free from political interference and to foster a culture of scientific openness. However, the translation of these principles into effective policies is lacking, and we recommend that EPA make significant changes to the draft policy to address this gap.

To improve EPA's draft policy, OMB Watch makes these recommendations in our comments:

Make the prohibitions on political interference with science enforceable;
Strengthen protections for the free flow of scientific information;
Protect personnel who blow the whistle on scientific integrity violations;
Improve scientific integrity in peer review and federal advisory committees;
Expand the role and responsibilities of the Scientific Integrity Committee; and
Strengthen scientific integrity in interagency processes.

EPA's draft suggests that the agency understands the central role of scientific integrity in achieving its critical work to protect Americans' health and natural resources. But EPA needs more than just principles in order to have a policy that effectively upholds scientific integrity. Luckily, EPA has a great model to draw from: the draft NOAA policy. We're hopeful that EPA will make the revisions necessary to ensure that EPA science continues to be top-caliber research that Americans can trust.

(Gavin Baker 09/07/11; 2 comments)

How to Strengthen Transparency in the U.S. Open Government Plan

Yesterday, OMB Watch submitted its recommendations for the Obama administration's national plan for the Open Government Partnership (OGP). The administration will unveil its plan, with new concrete commitments to increase transparency, at the international OGP meeting on Sept. 20.

Seven other countries will also announce their national open government plans at that summit, organized around the United Nations General Assembly meeting. For the U.S. as well as the other participants, OGP has been an impetus to action for transparency. The national plan to be released in September is an important opportunity for the administration to expand on its progress in strengthening open government in order to empower Americans and build a better democracy.

In blog posts on Aug. 8 and Aug. 22, the administration asked for feedback on six topics to inform the development of its national plan. Reforms in these areas, including improving federal websites and promoting corporate accountability, would constitute a positive agenda for the U.S. Open Government Plan.

Our comments offer recommendations on each of the six topics. Among the ideas offered, OMB Watch encouraged the administration to:

Transform Regulations.gov into a one-stop shop for citizens to learn about rulemaking
Establish federal website standards that encourage proactive disclosure, identification of public priorities, and visualization tools
Improve Data.gov with common data formats, identifiers, and user-friendly interfaces
Strengthen records management with smarter IT investments and email policy
Make regulatory compliance information more user-friendly
Promote corporate accountability with better disclosure

In addition to these comments, OMB Watch has consulted with the administration on other topics that would make excellent contributions to the U.S. Open Government Plan. Meaningful reforms to the six consultation topics would be a significant step forward, but we hope that the administration will consider additional initiatives as well. For instance, the White House could establish an award, similar to the SAVE Award, to recognize the best contributions to open government by federal employees. Such an award could be an important way to foster a culture of openness within government and would be a helpful complement to the policy reforms the administration is considering.

We invite readers to join the discussion by sending their thoughts on the six topics by email to opengov@ostp.gov.

(Gavin Baker 09/01/11; 3 comments)

NOAA Takes Lead on Protecting Scientific Integrity

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) efforts to protect scientific integrity make the agency a leader among its federal counterparts, OMB Watch said in comments filed last week.

NOAA represents some of the best efforts so far. The agency's draft scientific integrity policy and procedural handbook, released to the public in June, are thoughtful and detailed. In addition, NOAA has been an exemplar of openness in developing its policy, most importantly by soliciting public comments on its draft policy.

Fundamentally, an effective scientific integrity policy must do two things: prevent political interference with science and protect the free flow of scientific information. NOAA's draft policy makes strong provisions for both.

In our comments, OMB Watch makes the following recommendations:

Retain strong protections to prevent and redress political interference with science;
Retain and strengthen protections for the free flow of scientific information;
Strengthen protections for personnel who blow the whistle on violations of scientific integrity;
Improve the timeliness of investigations of scientific integrity violations;
Improve the transparency of investigations of scientific integrity violations;
Regularly review the policy and update it as appropriate; and
Strengthen scientific integrity in interagency processes.

Although our suggestions would further improve the policy, NOAA should be commended for its leadership for posting a strong draft. At a time when some agencies are struggling to meaningfully move scientific integrity forward, other agencies should look to NOAA as a model.

At the same time – as we point out in our final recommendation – NOAA alone can't fully protect its science. The biggest recent scientific integrity controversy at NOAA, regarding the mysteriously delayed disclosure of worst-case models for the BP oil spill, revolves around the role of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), not NOAA itself. As we write in our comments:

Consequently, while NOAA has done its duty to develop strong scientific integrity protections, the task of fully securing NOAA science will not be complete until other agencies do so as well, particularly OMB and other White House offices.

(Gavin Baker 08/22/11; 0 comments)

Scientific Integrity Policies Moving Forward, But Still Little Sunlight

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced in a blog post today that nearly all the agencies participating in the development of scientific integrity policies had submitted draft policies to OSTP. The deadline for agencies to do so was last week. The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are behind schedule but are expected to submit their policies soon.

The progress toward implementing President Obama's scientific integrity memo is promising. Unfortunately, the implementation process continues to be haphazard. OSTP still hasn't set a deadline for agencies to finalize their policies, directed agencies to solicit public comment on their policies, or even to publish their final policies.

In fact, the most surprising part of today's announcement is that five agencies have already finalized their policies! The Interior Department had already finalized its policy late last year, after soliciting public comment. But the other four agencies – the Departments of Commerce and Justice, as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Intelligence Community – do not appear to have done public consultation in developing their policies. While Commerce and NASA have posted their final policies online, it's unclear if Justice and the Intelligence Community have taken even that most basic step toward transparency.

Thankfully, a few other agencies are taking the wiser approach of being more open. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have published their draft policies for public comment. The other agencies should do so as well, with the goal of finalizing their policies later this year.

(Gavin Baker 08/11/11; 1 comment)

Administration Seeks Transparency Ideas

The administration yesterday rolled out the awaited next phase of public consultations for its Open Government Partnership (OGP) action plan. The announcement asked for comments on three specific issues where the administration could make worthwhile gains on transparency.

The United States is scheduled to release its action plan, with concrete commitments to increase transparency, in September. Under OGP, a global initiative launched in July, countries have to solicit public consultation while developing their plans.

To date, the administration has held several invited meetings with open government experts to discuss potential commitments for the U.S. plan. Yesterday's announcement opened the consultation to the broader public. The White House blog post asks for public comment on three topics:

How can regulations.gov, one of the primary mechanisms for government transparency and public participation, be made more useful to the public rulemaking process?

OMB is beginning the process of reviewing and potentially updating its Federal Web Policy. What policy updates should be included in this revision to make Federal websites more user-friendly and pertinent to the needs of the public?

How can we build on the success of Data.Gov and encourage the use of democratized data to build new consumer-oriented products and services?

The post invites the public to email their suggestions to the White House. The post doesn't specify a deadline for comments, but as the U.S. is expected to release its plan in mid-September, sooner will be better for commenting.

The announcement states that the administration will publish additional posts on its OGP plan over the next month, but doesn't detail a schedule or what topics future posts might address. Finally, the post states that the administration will post a summary of the comments it receives.

It's positive that the administration is preparing an OGP action plan and is soliciting feedback on what commitments it should undertake. As we wrote previously, the U.S. action plan "could include innovative and meaningful steps forward," and we're hopeful that it will. The three topics identified so far by the administration are sound places to start and could lead to valuable increases in transparency.

At the same time, it's hard not to feel that the administration is cutting corners on public participation in developing the plan. The OGP roadmap lays out clear standards for public consultation, which the administration still hasn't met. In particular, countries are supposed to detail the consultation's timeline and to publish all the comments it receives, not just a summary. The administration should do so, to bolster the consultation process and to set a strong example for the other countries participating in OGP.

(Gavin Baker 08/09/11; 4 comments)

Secret Watchlists: Don’t Ask, Because Uncle Sam Won’t Tell

Starting last Friday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is operating a massive new database of personal information: names, birthdates, photographs, biometrics, and more. The information comes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Terrorist Screening Database, the accuracy of which has been widely criticized. Scary stuff, since being listed in the database can mean nearly-endless hassles any time you try to board a flight or cross a border.

But if you want to know if you're in the database, you'll be out of luck. A proposed rule by DHS would keep the database secret by exempting it from nearly every provision of the Privacy Act. Because the proposal challenges the fundamental tenets of government accountability and transparency, OMB Watch joined comments opposing the proposed rule, which were filed today by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and other groups.

Congress passed the Privacy Act in 1974 to give effect to some of the most important principles of transparency. Under the law, you have the right to know what information the government has about you, to know how they've used the information, and to correct the information if it's wrong. Those principles are essential to keeping government accountable, and they should be preserved.

The Privacy Act does allow agencies to create certain exemptions: in particular, for information about law enforcement investigations. The law enforcement exemptions are intended to ensure the integrity of investigations while they are ongoing. But in its proposed rule, DHS not only claims those exemptions, it takes them to the extreme. Under the pretense of preventing interference in investigations, DHS claims a blanket exemption from the Privacy Act rights for all the information in the database, forever.

DHS' approach twists the purpose of the Privacy Act exemptions almost beyond recognition. Exemptions should be limited to the time when they're needed, and no longer. But the proposed exemptions would never expire, even if the subjects in the database aren't under active investigation. This isn't necessary to protect the integrity of investigations, and it invites abuses. As our comment to DHS notes, "the notion of an investigation that is ongoing in perpetuity and without completion would be absurd."

The proposal does state that DHS would be able to waive the exemptions "on a case by case basis." While this may sound like a reasonable approach, it would radically undermine the right to know. In fact, it would turn the right on its head. DHS' proposal would create a strong presumption that you don't have a right to know, and give DHS the sole discretion to decide

In our comments to DHS, we suggest a more targeted approach that would better respect the presumption of openness by limiting exemptions to the situations where they're actually necessary:

Rather than claiming blanket exemptions, the DHS could promulgate rules that would require notification only after an active investigation had been concluded, or with sensitive information, such as the identity of confidential informants, redacted prior to release.

We strongly believe that the government should take prudent actions to prevent and prosecute terrorism. But we also believe that the government can, and should, respect our rights in doing so. DHS should revise its proposed rule to restore the transparency that Americans deserve.

(Gavin Baker 08/08/11; 3 comments)