Category: government transparency

Categories
Accountability government transparency

Those Pesky Online Citizens

Are “the people” a problem for technology to solve?

One of the benefits of the Internet has been the increased ease with which citizens can learn about their governments. Just as important has been the increased opportunity to tell elected representatives and public officials, along with their hired guns in federal, state, and local bureaucracies, just what they think.

Technology has given democracy a second lease on life.

But that doesn’t mean that politicians aren’t fighting back. And finding service providers and consultants to help them.

According to Michael Cohen, co-​founder of Peak Democracy, Inc., online public comment forums can have awful consequences for politicians. They may fall prey to the dreaded “Referendum Effect.” This malady, Cohen explains, is

the loss of decision-​making autonomy that government leaders incur when a community expects decisions to be based solely on the majority opinion of public feedback. More specifically, the Referendum Effect occurs when public feedback usurps the decision-​making independence of government leaders.

Note the assumption here: government leaders should be “independent” of the voters.

Another way he counsels the International City/​County Management Association “to minimize the Referendum Effect is to exclude the word ‘vote’ from the user interface – as the ‘v‑word’ can create an expectation that feedback with the most votes wins.”

Cohen ends with an offer: “To learn more about the Referendum Effect and ways to prevent it, contact Mike@​PeakDemocracy.​com.”

Cohen is more than willing to advise how to keep pesky citizens from actually having an effective voice online. If you want to keep yours, meet his e‑realpolitik with e‑vigilance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Note: Robert J. O’Neill, Jr. (roneill@​icma.​org) is the executive director of the International City/​County Management Association, which published Cohen’s comments.

Categories
First Amendment rights government transparency insider corruption national politics & policies

What a Whistle-​blower Learned

It can happen to any organization. The original intent — or, at any rate, declared purpose — of the concern gets lost amidst the chaos of hard-​to-​manage projects and personnel, as individuals re-​define their goals at variance with the official end; as corruption sets in; as functions decay into forms persisting out of mere inertia; as institutional memory and learning get short-​circuited by broken feedback loops and a culture of silence, secrecy, and hush-​hush prudence.We Meant Well by Peter Van Buren

No organization is exempt, but it happens most often, and easiest, in government.

Take the experience of Peter Van Buren, late of two State Department Provincial Reconstruction Teams, related in The American Conservative:

In some 24 years of government service, I experienced my share of dissonance when it came to what was said in public and what the government did behind the public’s back.…

What I saw while serving the State Department at a forward operating base in Iraq was, however, different. There, the space between what we were doing (the eye-​watering waste and mismanagement), and what we were saying (the endless claims of success and progress), was filled with numb soldiers and devastated Iraqis.…

Van Buren wrote a book on that huge divide between secret truth and public lie, and, of course, got in trouble for it. Folks higher up in government are not renowned for their love of whistle-​blowers. Van Buren not unexpectedly finds himself being shown the door on his own career, or, as he puts it, his superiors are preparing to put his “head on a pike inside the lobby of State’s Foggy Bottom headquarters as a warning to its other employees.”

Government may not honor whistle-​blowers, but citizens should. After all, it is allegedly for our sake that government does what it does. To discover, as Mr. Van Buren discovered, that “we failed in the [Iraq] reconstruction and, through that failure, lost the war,” is news we must incorporate into our storehouse of foreign policy wisdom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency too much government

Big Anonymous Is Listening

A newspaper report brought a smile to my face and a strange sense of … relief, reassurance. A group of hackers known as Anonymous has apparently cracked into and tape-​recorded a conference call held between the FBI and Britain’s Scotland Yard.Anonymous Twitter Account

The call was to discuss the international investigation of the Anonymous hackers.

“The #FBI might be curious how we’re able to continuously read their internal [communications] for some time now. #OpInfiltration,” read a taunting tweet about the audio file.

An FBI agent, insisting on speaking anonymously, said, “It’s not really that sophisticated.” The anonymous government agent explained that the Anonymous group had somehow intercepted an email with the call’s information. The agent offered that the FBI is “always looking at ways to make our communications more secure.”

Apparently, Anonymous has quite the work ethic. Shortly following the penetration of FBI/​Scotland Yard security (so to speak), down went websites for the Greek Ministry of Justice, the Boston Police Department, and the lawyers representing a U.S. Marine implicated in the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians.

Now, I don’t generally support hacking into government computers or taking down people’s websites. I’m more laissez-​faire. But, actions by Anonymous to force government transparency are helpful, may even sport a certain revolutionary justice.

Is Anonymous on my side? More so, I bet, than this scary national security state that now thinks it can assassinate or incarcerate an American citizen without charge or any legitimate judicial process on the orders of one man: the president.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights free trade & free markets general freedom government transparency

Secret Censorship

“There are so many things about this story that are crazy,” according to a detailed and exasperated report at Techdirt​.com, “it’s difficult to know where to start.”

What story? The one you’ve probably heard nothing about.

Back in late 2010, the federal government seized Dajaz1​.com, a popular Internet blog devoted to hip hop. The Justice Department and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shut down the website domain claiming it was infringing on music copyrights. ICE “put up a big scary warning graphic on the site, suggesting its operators were criminals.”

The government then failed to abide by the legal requirements for filing an asset forfeiture case, conducting a secret legal effort, instead. Motions, hearings, and court decisions were filed in secret and placed under “seal,” denying the website owners and their attorney any opportunity for challenge.

Freedom of speech? Due process of law? Obliterated. And yet, earlier this month, the government admitted it had no legitimate case, no probable cause to go after this website in the first place, and, after a year of censorship, finally returned the web domain to its rightful owners.

That a website can be seized by our government, without a charge being publicly made and the crime proven in a fair and open court of law, is absolutely frightening.

What’s even scarier, though, is that legislation currently being considered by Congress — Protect IP and the Stop Online Piracy Act — would give the federal government even more sweeping powers to regulate and control the Internet.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency insider corruption

Mad About Power

“There’s no such thing as too much power.”

That’s the word from Democrat Herb Wesson, former Speaker of the California Assembly. Wesson was defending the Speaker’s awesome control over the purse strings.

In a story headlined, “The power of one: Perez controls Assembly with money,” the Sacramento Bee reports: “Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez single-​handedly doles out millions in public funds each year to his 80 members: No vote, no committee, no debate.”

The article was vague on details, because the Speaker refused open records requests from the Bee and the Los Angeles Times. In August, the newspapers filed suit to see the legislative records.

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino charges that Speaker Pérez cut his staff as retribution for voting against this year’s state budget — although the state constitution makes it a crime to coerce a member’s vote. Assemblyman Tony Mendoza admitted that his office budget was slashed by $80,000 when the Speaker demoted him from the Rules Committee, but he wouldn’t discuss it with reporters.

Were a special interest group to similarly bribe legislators, Californians would be up in arms. But a politician? We’ll see how this plays out.

“It’s a very difficult house to run,” argues Mr. Wesson, “and you have to have the leverage that the speaker has.” Steve Maviglio, former spokesperson for two Assembly Speakers, echoes that sentiment, claiming that without a healthy bribery power, the legislative chamber would descend into “absolute chaos.”

Extreme. But some “chaos” must be better than the current all-​too-​orderly system of corruption.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency initiative, referendum, and recall

Saving Grandma

Republican legislators in Utah are trying to kill Grandma. Don’t dismiss this as a smear. It’s true.

Only spell it GRAMA, which is an acronym for Utah’s 20-​year old Government Records Access Management Act, Utah’s open government and information access law. A furiously fast four days after legislators first introduced a bill to gut the open records law, it sailed through both legislative chambers and was quickly signed by the governor.

House Bill 477 changes the core of the GRAMA law, mandating that citizens must prove they deserve access to records, rather than the previous rule requiring government officials to show cause for why a document should not be released. The legislation also exempts text messages, emails and voicemails from being disclosed, the better to keep lobbyists and special interests out of the limelight.

Thankfully, Utah has a statewide process of initiative and referendum. Already a petition to put HB-​477 to a referendum is underway. Unfortunately, the task is arduous: The sponsors need 100,000 voters to sign in only 40 days. 

To add extra burden, legislators have passed Senate Bill 165, outlawing citizens from using electronic signatures for just such petitions. 

Now the furious Utah electorate, joined by an angry media, is creating enough heat that politicians are seeing the light. The Governor is calling a special session to repeal HB-​477. And a lawsuit may be filed any day now to strike down the unconstitutional, anti-​democratic SB-165.

This is Common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.