I was watching CNN yesterday morning (as has become my habit since my first day of almost religious TV watching in the morning, 9/11/01), and I saw a bit on a new feature of the White House web site. It's called Ask The White House and, although it claims that it is an "interactive forum where you can submit questions to White House officials," it seems that there are only scheduled online discussions hosted by a member of the White House staff. However, I don't see any information on upcoming online discussions on the page, or even information on when the two posted discussions (supposedly) took place. The "inaugural" discussion was hosted by White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card who, from his responses, if he actually gave them, seems to be a nice enough guy, but the "discussion" made me uneasy. I had expected to find lots of messages at least questioning Secretary Card about the situation in Iraq, if not making strong, angry comments about how the administration is totally insane and shady, but there are just these nice, polite, essentially "softball" questions from (supposed) citizen participants that allow Card to talk about himself and how great the administration is. Now, despite a couple quasi-critical questions and a few spelling/grammar errors, these do *not* seem like legit questions to me. Perhaps some White House aids are busily screening messages while another set of aids consults with Card and some lucky aid gets to be the one to do Card's typing for him, but this doesn't seem likely to me. My impression of this "discussion" is that it isn't real, that the questions and answers were, at best, written by an aid and answered by Card, who had his assistant type them in for him.
It occurred to me that perhaps I was just being paranoid again, but reading the second discussion with the Administrator for E-Government and Information Technology Mark Forman made me more convinced.
Fahmeeda, from NY. NY writes:
What are the E-Government iniatives and how will it help an ordinary citizen communicate with the Government? What future plan does E-Gov hold? Will I be able to vote on-line without going to the polling booth in the future?
Mark Forman:
There are many E-Gov initiatives focused on providing access to the government in "three-clicks" or less. Two good sources of information. FirstGov.gov is the portal to the federal government where you may obtain on line services and information. And www.egov.gov is the website that has information about all of the President's E-Gov initiatives. For example, if you wanted to find out information on parks and recreation facilities you could go to www.recreation.gov which you can easily find at the FirstGov.gov website.
Karen, from Springfield writes:
When will citizens be able to read comments made by other citzens about proposed regulations online?
Mark Forman:
Today at some of the major regulatory agencies, such as EPA and Department of Transportation, you may find and view other citizens' comments on proposed regulations. Soon, on www.regulations.gov, one of the President's E-Gov initiatives, you will be able to find and comment on all proposed regulations."
These aren't just softball questions. They seem to have been written with the answer in mind. I ask you, what kind of Joe-schmoe citizen out there already knows enough about the E-Government Initiatives to know that it's intended to "help an ordinary citizen communicate with the Government", or just happens to ask when the government is going to start doing something on the very same forum where the government is making an announcement about that thing? Seems fishy to me.
It turns out that this "Ask the White House" thing is part of the E-Government Initiatives , a program run by the Office of Management and Budget and whose budget is "estimated to be $59 billion for 2004, up from the 2003 Budget request of $53 billion. This increase, much of which is expected to occur during 2003, has two primary causes: better reporting by agencies has
identified $2 billion that was not previously reported as IT; and new spending is planned to support homeland security and the war on terrorism. The increase in IT spending has primarily been achieved through reprioritizing to support key Administration goals, with a shift by agencies toward strategic use of technology to improve performance." The E-Government Initiatives, despite the way their site looks, is not the idea of President Bush, but required by a couple acts passed under and signed by Clinton and just formalized and made permanent by the the E-Government Act of 2002.
Clinger-Cohen Act:
"The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (CCA) requires that, in conjunction with the president's budget submission, the OMB Director submit a report to Congress on the results of federal IT spending. The Act requires that the report identify ``net program performance benefits achieved as a result of major capital investments made by executive agencies in information systems and how the benefits relate to the accomplishments of the goals of the executive agencies.'' The Act also requires that appropriate security and privacy controls are identified and implemented to safeguard the federal government's information and systems. Finally, the Clinger-Cohen Act and the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 contain IT management reform activities that must be documented in the President's budget submission to Congress."
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Title V (FASA V):
"There are two major components of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act Title V (FASA V). First, agencies must demonstrate sound decision-making and a results-oriented focus when planning for projects. Second, agencies must effectively manage ongoing programs and achieve at least ninety percent of planned costs, schedule, and performance goals."
It is interesting that although these acts were passed in the mid-90's, there hasn't been much promotion of the government access web sites and there have been drastic reductions in the amount of government information that is actually available. FirstGov.gov seems to be a great place to get government information, file your taxes, and contact representatives, but does it really represent an improvement in government accessibility or disclosure? One of the goals is to make E-Governement improvements so as to "support key Administration goals", but who is to say that those goals are truly in the interest of the citizens and that it's really worth $59 billion annually. From the first "Ask the White House" discussions, I'd say that the Administration's goal is to get out its propagandistic messages and present the image that the country is united and working smoothly.
Now, the Center for Technology and Democracy supports the E-Government Initiatives and with good reason. It's a great idea. Making government programs easier to access, eliminating the need to stand in long lines and file paper documents, being able to find the email address of your representatives and submit your comments about proposed legislation is a great thing. The liberalizing potential of this program is a dream-come-true for those who believe in a real democracy and using media to improve representation and expand the "marketplace of ideas."
However, even with this interest and spending on increasing accessibility of government information, the spirit of these acts and the program has already been undermined, not only by more recent acts and our government's clandestine actions, but E-Government Initiative Act itself. Apparently, one of the administration's goals, is making sure that no one can access information that could facilitate terrorist acts. OMB Watch , has taken it upon themselves to see how our rights to government information have been affected since 9/11 and have found out that many government sites have had all kinds of information removed and/or edited. Under the Freedom of Information Act, OMB Watch has been able to find out exactly what kinds of information has been removed, notably information from the EPA's site. Information on public health and safety risks and actions taken by the EPA have been removed. Yes, it is possible that some would-be terrorist could know the location of certain chemicals or access information on how dangerous situations are handled, etc., but this is information that citizens are supposed to be able to access.
I find it, sadly, too easy to believe that the government is taking a perfectly good idea, like improving access to information, and making a total sham out of it. There are some parts that are nice and all, but the top-down creation of these sites and control of the information on them, leave too much room for either fake information, as with the Card and Forman discussions, and censorship of information, as with the EPA site. I'm not sure what the answer is to this apparent contradiction, but I thought I should let you guys know it's out there...
Posted by Kristina at April 17, 2003 07:55 PM