On Dec. 31, 2011, Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board Chairman Earl Devaney stepped down after leading the Board for almost three years. Devaney did more than anyone else to ensure Recovery Act spending was as transparent as it was, and his presence will be sorely missed.

While he didn't create the transparency provisions in the Recovery Act (those were written into the law or created by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)), Devaney implemented the law's requirements. He and his team created the Recovery.gov website from scratch in remarkably little time and did a great deal to ensure that recipients understood their reporting responsibilities under the law. As a former inspector general (for the Department of the Interior), Devaney placed a strong emphasis on finding and preventing fraudulent contracting and wasteful spending, creating the Recovery Operations Center. He also insisted on making maps of Recovery Act spending the focal point of Recovery.gov, arguing that the government needed to do more to display information in useful ways.

Devaney understood the importance of providing information to the public and talked of empowering an army of citizen inspectors general. We appreciated the fact that he frequently reached out to the transparency community to get feedback and guidance. When we raised concerns about the quality of the data from the first rounds of recipient reporting, the Board moved quickly to fix the problems it could, such as automatically filling in some data fields for recipients (for example, pulling in company information from existing contracting databases) and creating algorithms to spot potential red flags (such as recipients reporting that they had spent more money than they had received).

Devaney also championed transparency beyond the Recovery Act. He has been a vocal supporter of unique identifiers for recipients of federal funds, a thorny problem that has long plagued federal spending transparency. For the past six months or so, he has also been the head of the Government Accountability and Transparency (GAT) Board, created by President Obama last year to "provide strategic direction for enhancing the transparency of Federal spending and advance efforts to detect and remediate fraud, waste, and abuse." The GAT Board's recent report advocated for many reforms, most importantly centralizing spending databases and streamlining reporting obligations, in addition to calling for a universal system of unique identifiers for contracts and grants throughout the federal government.

Devaney will be replaced by current Education Department Inspector General Kathleen Tighe. Tighe has been on the Recovery Board since March 2010, serving as the chair of the Board's Accountability Committee since March 2011. Interestingly, Tighe will not be stepping down from her inspector general role, which possibly indicates a diminution of the position of Recovery Board chair. The chair was a full-time job for Devaney, who stepped away from his Department of the Interior position to lead the Board, and Devaney clearly had Vice President Biden's ear, meeting frequently with him to discuss various issues related to the Board's work.

The chair's reduced prominence is likely a reflection of the administration's desire to move on from the Recovery Act. With most of the Recovery Act money already spent, Tighe's job will largely be overseeing the dissolution of the Board and the application of lessons learned from the Recovery Act to the entire federal government, a process Devaney has already started with the GAT Board. There's still much to be done to improve federal spending transparency, but hopefully, even in a part-time role, Tighe will bring to her new position just as much passion and success as Devaney.

Image by Flickr user OversightandReform.

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.

It's been 48 days since the Super Committee's last public meeting on Sept. 8 (and over a month passed between the Super Committee's second and third public hearings). For those of us who have been watching the Super Committee since day one, eagerly awaiting information on the specifics of its proposal for cutting $1.5 trillion dollars from the federal deficit, 48 days of radio silence not only has us on edge, it also has us questioning the Super Committee's commitment to transparency and the democratic process.

In early August, when President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (aka the debt ceiling deal) into law, he also approved the creation of a 12-member Super Committee charged with finding $1.5 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. In response, OMB Watch joined other public interest groups in demanding transparency from the Super Committee. We created SuperCommitteeWatch.org as a clearinghouse for information about the committee and its pending deficit-reduction proposal, and we wrote up a list of specific transparency asks. We asked for access to:

• Live and archived webcasts of all meetings and hearings
• Witness lists and hearing agendas
• Proposals and supporting documentation
• A means to collect and aggregate public feedback and reactions to the proposals being considered

Despite the requests of the open government community, we've seen only one public meeting and three public hearings (the third held yesterday). While we acknowledge that the Super Committee has taken initiative by archiving videos of the hearings on their official website, we can't help but feel disappointed at what little effort they've made thus far to include the American people in their decision-making process. Considering the effect the final proposal will have on the lives of Americans nationwide, we think the nation deserves Super Committee transparency on a much larger scale.

Reporters at The New York Times attempted on Tuesday to give us a progress report on the Super Committee's activities. Most of what they managed to uncover, however, were vague references to an apparent stalemate between parties from anonymous sources.

With a Nov. 23 deadline looming over them, the Super Committee is in need of a solution to their apparent stalemate. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told The New York Times that the members of the Super Committee are "no more autonomous than your left thumb. They need some guidance from the White House and from the leadership of Congress."

Here's an idea – how about some guidance from the American people? The Los Angeles Times reported that the Super Committee has received more than 180,000 recommendations from "lawmakers, advocacy groups and ordinary Americans." We'd like to know exactly what these recommendations are, who is making them, and whether or not the committee is taking them into account as they work toward a deficit-reduction plan.

We urge the Super Committee to make public these recommendations, as well as more of its meetings between now and Nov. 23. Let the American people weigh in on what revenue options or spending cuts they'd like to see. Allow them to actively participate in the decisions that will, no doubt, have a huge impact on their lives. Restore some credibility to our democracy. Help the American people participate in their own governance.

If you're interested in getting involved, our colleagues at the Sunlight Foundation have organized a great way for you to have your voice heard. Join them as they "Haunt the House" on October 31. They'll be heading to Super Committee members' offices all around the country to remind them who they work for, and they want you to be there!

The Super Committee has 27 days until its final proposal is due. Let's hope these next 27 days are more transparent than the last 48.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, unveiled on Monday a database of anti-environment votes by the 112th Congress. According to the minority page of the Committee's website, "the most anti-environment House in the history of Congress" has voted 125 times "to block action to address climate change, to halt efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to undermine protections for public lands and coastal areas, and to weaken the protection of the environment in other ways." The votes are searchable by legislation, topic, statute, or agency, and the database provides the American people with information about each bill or amendment, including a summary, the sponsoring member, and the outcome of the final vote.

The 125 anti-environment votes include 31 to block actions to prevent air and water pollution, 33 to undermine protections for public lands and coastal areas (including funding cuts), and 20 to block actions to address climate change, according to information compiled by the committee’s Democratic minority staff. Unsurprisingly, the votes fell largely along party lines. A staff summary of the votes finds that, on average, 96 percent of Republicans voted anti-environment, while 84 percent of Democrats took the pro-environment position.

Included in the database are votes on the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill (H.R. 2584) taken on or before July 28. The appropriations bill, which has been called "one of the most extreme attacks on our environment and public health in modern history," made it to the House floor in July with 39 policy riders that would hamper efforts to protect our health, air, water, and wildlife. The floor vote on H.R. 2584 is expected to resume this month.

The database launch comes just before the majority plans to continue a slew of legislative attacks on environmental regulations, including Clean Air Act rules that are expected to prevent thousands of premature deaths and produce billions of dollars in benefits annually. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has become a favorite target for some members of Congress, despite evidence showing that environmental regulations save lives, produce economic benefits that outweigh their costs, and can prompt job creation.

The new database does not give an in-depth analysis of each bill’s impact on public health and the environment, but it does help viewers understand the magnitude of Congress’ anti-environment movement. It also provides the public with a one-stop-shop for viewing bills and amendments that would undermine crucial protections and identifying which members of Congress are responsible. As the contentious debate over environmental regulations draws out, let’s hope efforts like these continue and that we do not allow our public protections to be destroyed without a fight.