lobbying update part 2
John Wonderlich
Committee Information:
Pushing for more robust disclosure of committee information in the House through committee websites provides great room for improvement, since this set of recommendations covers several different types of information, all presented to various degrees by the various committees.
Our energy has been mainly focused on getting some kind of RSS notification system set up for the House that could match with the Senate's aggregated page, and ultimately result in a single aggregated spot where one could find all of the congressional committee hearings, updated as they're scheduled. This isn't an easy task, with the primary issue being finding a balance between usefulness and ease of entering, which corresponds with the likelihood of implementation. A good starting place may be to use the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's standard, which you can find halfway down the right hand side of their page. Greg Palmer (of Waxman's staff) has been working on setting up useful feeds, and has helpfully pointed out that the amount of effort that goes into entering data into the feeds relies heavily on the format that the data is currently stored in, which may vary from committee to committee. Again, it seems that simplicity is necessary for incremental improvements.
Also, Ari Schwartz posted this morning on the Open House Project blog about adding an additional requirement for the submitted answers submitted after committee hearings to be posted online. This would be a great addition to the requirement of transcripts being posted online for hearings, which will now presumably signed by President Bush.
Many of the things we're looking for are continuing to advance ad hoc, as more committees fill out their web presence. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is now offering archived video of their hearings, although finding it isn't obvious (click on the large text at the top of the page). Carl Malamud is also collecting hi-res video from four different committees and depositing them online.
CRS Reports:
The CRS Reports section has seen the smallest amount of actual progress, although it seems to me that the reports have been in the news more often, and we've been pushing for reports to be used more often for reliable unbiased information, by posting CRS reports on Tuesdays that are relevant to the week's news stories. I'm also interested in identifying other sorts of incremental steps we could ask for, such as access to a subject list of CRS topics, or getting access to reports with the authors' names redacted. I really feel like public access is ultimately inevitable, especially when people process just how obnoxious it is that they're for sale, through some unknown mechanism. I could be wrong about this, but doesn't it seem at least unseemly to provide access to government documents for profit?
I'll have another update in soon, moving through the other sections of the report.
John
John Wonderlich
Program Director
The Sunlight Foundation
(202) 742-1520 ext. 234
David All
Good to see progress being made, albeit slowly.
On 8/21/07 3:17 PM, "John Wonderlich" <johnwon...@gmail.com> wrote:
Continuing my earlier update <http://groups.google.com/group/openhouseproject/browse_thread/thread/91986994dd7e75d6> on lobbying for public access reform efforts in the House...
Committee Information:
Pushing for more robust disclosure of committee information in the House through committee websites provides great room for improvement, since this set of recommendations covers several different types of information, all presented to various degrees by the various committees.
Our energy has been mainly focused on getting some kind of RSS notification system set up for the House that could match with the Senate's aggregated page, and ultimately result in a single aggregated spot where one could find all of the congressional committee hearings, updated as they're scheduled. This isn't an easy task, with the primary issue being finding a balance between usefulness and ease of entering, which corresponds with the likelihood of implementation. A good starting place may be to use the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's standard, which you can find halfway down the right hand side of their page <http://oversight.house.gov/> . Greg Palmer (of Waxman's staff) has been working on setting up useful feeds, and has helpfully pointed out that the amount of effort that goes into entering data into the feeds relies heavily on the format that the data is currently stored in, which may vary from committee to committee. Again, it seems that simplicity is necessary for incremental improvements.
Also, Ari Schwartz posted this morning on the Open House Project blog <http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/08/21/committee-sites-should-make-questions-and-answers-available/> about adding an additional requirement for the submitted answers submitted after committee hearings to be posted online. This would be a great addition to the requirement of transcripts being posted online for hearings, which will now presumably signed by President Bush.
Many of the things we're looking for are continuing to advance ad hoc, as more committees fill out their web presence. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is now offering archived video <http://www.senate.gov/%7Eforeign/hearings/2007/hrg070801a.html> of their hearings, although finding it isn't obvious (click on the large text at the top of the page). Carl Malamud is also collecting <http://www.archive.org/details/us_congress> hi-res video from four different committees and depositing them online.
CRS Reports:
The CRS Reports section has seen the smallest amount of actual progress, although it seems to me that the reports have been in the news more often, and we've been pushing for reports to be used more often for reliable unbiased information, by posting CRS reports <http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/08/21/crs-tuesday-mortgages-the-federal-reserve-and-the-angry-analyst/> on Tuesdays that are relevant to the week's news stories. I'm also interested in identifying other sorts of incremental steps we could ask for, such as access to a subject list of CRS topics, or getting access to reports with the authors' names redacted. I really feel like public access is ultimately inevitable, especially when people process just how obnoxious it is that they're for sale <http://www.gallerywatch.com/m_services.htm> , through some unknown mechanism. I could be wrong about this, but doesn't it seem at least unseemly to provide access to government documents for profit?
Lou Klepner
CRS Reports:
...[trimmed]... I really feel like public access is ultimately inevitable, especially when people process just how obnoxious it is that they're for sale, through some unknown mechanism. I could be wrong about this, but doesn't it seem at least unseemly to provide access to government documents for profit?
Steven Clift
Steve
From the use agreement:
http://www.crsdocuments.com
http://www.crsdocuments.com/OrderLiscAgreement.pdf
6. Exclusive Access. Access to the Service is intended for the exclusive use of Subscriber’s employees at the business location(s) specified below, and such access shall not be shared with others. You agree to treat your user names and passwords as confidential and not disclose such user names and passwords, either directly or indirectly, to any person except as specifically authorized within this license agreement. Any unauthorized access by others will constitute a material breach of this Agreement and will give GW all the rights described in paragraph 9 hereof as well as the right to retain any fees paid in advance by Subscriber. Public and Private Libraries may permit access, only at the designated library location specified below. Public access via internet, telenet services, modem, WAN, VPN or other means, outside the physical library location specified below, is prohibited.
...
9. Rights in the Data and Materials. Except for the license granted herein, all right, title and interest in the information and reports (“Data and Materials”) delivered to Subscriber through the use of the Service, in all languages, formats and media throughout the world, including all copyrights therein, are and shall continue to be the exclusive property of GW and other contributors ("Contributors") of Data. All Data and Materials through the use of the Service are for Subscriber’s personal and internal use, and may not be resold, republished or otherwise distributed to third parties in any form, except that Subscriber may include information and quotations from the Service in any written reports it prepares for clients in the normal course of its business as long as such reports are not separately available for sale and GW is identified as the source of such information or quotations through the use of a GW copyright notice (including the then-current calendar year) unle
ss otherwise notified: COPR. © Gallerywatch.com, Inc. [1999-2004]. NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORKS.
All trademarks, computer programs, database files, interfaces, menu systems, related materials, and all copyrights and other rights therein and in Data and Materials delivered to Subscriber through the use of the Service, shall remain the exclusive property of GW and other contributors ("Contributors") of Data. Subscriber acknowledges that the materials included in the Service have been gathered, organized and verified by GW through the investment of substantial time, effort and expense, and that any violation of the provisions of this paragraph shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall give GW the right to suspend Subscriber’s access to the Service and pursue all available legal and equitable remedies. In the event of such a violation, Subscriber shall be liable for all costs that may be incurred by GW (including reasonable attorney’s fees) in pursuing such remedies.
Steven Clift
"An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy."
Here is a question - has Congress investigated how -all- the reports get out. Is someone being paid off somewhere or are the commercial providers acting completely legit?
What about the media, anyone in the press care about this or do major media groups simply subscribe?
Let's assume that the collection process is 100% legit. How can our Congress let it stand that monied interests that can afford over $3,000 a year for full access get it, while the vast majority of the people they represent and the funders of this research get access to only a trickle?
Cutting off access to some is more equitable and democratic than allowing privileged access that rots the core of our democratic process. Until I see some equity, I simply don't and won't buy the CRS only serves members of Congress argument. Congress can't have it both ways - it is all or none, not just for some.
Steven Clift
Perla Ni
public doesn't get them until 2 months - years later.
Perla
--
Perla Ni
CEO, Founder, GreatNonprofits.org
Founder, Voterwatch.org
415-902-2659
Skype: Perlani
ni.p...@gmail.com