transcript and media letter
John Wonderlich
What other specific elements should we include?
Thanks Perla for your initiative.
Also, let us know if you or your organization would like to be a signatory.
-John
+++start letter, here's a linkable version+++
Dear (Chairperson, Speaker, Minority Leader, etc. )
As you know, the recently passed ethics reform legislation, S.1, contains a provision requiring all committees of the U.S. Senate to make available online the transcripts of all hearings held within 21 days. This Senate rules change -- which will create greater transparency for the work of the Senate -- constitutes a substantial recognition of the public as a partner in the legislative process. We strongly applaud your passage of this provision and urge its prompt implementation.
We are writing to today urge the Senate to use 21st century formats to implement these reforms. As the digital age is upon us, we hope that Congress will provide meaningful digital access to the proceedings of the House and Senate, both on the floor and in committee.
Specifically, we are writing to ask that you consider making these proceedings publicly available online in the form of audio, video, and a written transcript. All three forms are vital to the dissemination of committee activity to the public. Video captures emotions, words and context in a much richer way than other media. In addition, audio is necessary for people who are visually impaired, and transcripts are necessary for the hearing impaired. In fact, 29 USC requires that "a text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided" (29 U.S.C. 794d, commonly referred to as "Section 508").
We also request that the video, audio, and transcripts be permanently archived, and available without a fee to the public for education, research, and legal reference.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
We would be happy to meet with you or your staff at any time to discuss this issue. Please contact (John or Perla) at your convenience.
--
John Wonderlich
Program Director
The Sunlight Foundation
(202) 742-1520 ext. 234
Chris Kinnan
-Chris
Josh Tauberer
> Perla has been resolute in pushing for transcripts of committee
> hearings, and decided to formulate a letter to Congressional
> leadership. We've been editing back and forth today, and decided that
> the best way to be sure we included all of the important details would
> be to send the letter to the Open House Project group, to let you all
> see it and weigh in.
Nice.
Three comments.
First, technically, S. 1 doesn't require transcripts specifically.
"`(2)(A) Except with respect to meetings closed in accordance with this
rule, each committee and subcommittee shall make publicly available
through the Internet a video recording, audio recording, or transcript
of any meeting not later than 21 business days after the meeting
occurs." (effective 90 days after the enactment, which was Sept. 14)
As the letter noted, because of Section 508 (which I know nothing
about), transcripts are effectively required as a result of S. 1, but
not directly.
Second, until you get near the end of the letter, it's not clear what
the letter is asking for. It sounds from the second paragraph that it is
just asking that S. 1 be enforced.
Third, it'd be nice to reference the OHP report's section on this, since
we touched on video formats and related issues and made some concrete
suggestions.
--
- Josh Tauberer
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation! Yields
falsehood when preceded by its quotation!" Achilles to
Tortoise (in "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter)
John Wonderlich
This brings up an interesting point. I'm wondering what criteria we might apply to decide when a cost recovery model is appropriate for public information access.
After thinking briefly about it, I'm inclined to say that public documents should only be made available for a fee by the gov't (usually on a cost-recovery basis) when that's the only way that they're going to be available. If there's no other way to authorize the data's production or publication, or no other model is feasible, then I'd rather see a fee than no data.
That said, however, I'm also inclined to make a broad argument for public governmental information to be provided without a fee. If public information's dissemination is a public good, then I'd think it follows that it should be accessible with as few barriers as possible.
I'm sure there are a lot of examples of this struggle we could come up with; one that comes to mind first is the GPO's preliminary web presence which (as far as I know) was built around recovering the cost of making their materials available.
Another example would be documents from the US patent office. Patents that have been awarded are freely available, but the application materials documentation is not (the "file wrapper"). This means that companies thinking about appying for a patent are less likely to look up similar applications that have failed before, and that no third party is going to be able to do broad analysis that might detect meaningful trends in the length of time necessary for different types of patents to be approved. I can imagine all sorts of benefits that access to this data might have, perhaps letting potential applicants know the average number of times applications need to be revised before passage, etc. As long as the USPTO charges $50 dollars or so for each, this data's potential impact will be limited to those with a sufficiently specialized interest willing to look into specific applications.
I'm interested in what others think, though, about when it might be appropriate to charge for government publications.
John
Steven Clift
> Thanks, Chris.
>
> This brings up an interesting point. I'm wondering what criteria we
> might apply to decide when a cost recovery model is appropriate for
> public information access.
It is never appropriate if the information must be created for a governmental purpose. If there are costs involved with making it more usable to purposes outside the scope of the intended purpose for creation, then marginal cost is appropriate IF and only if there is no other way to fund access (or if there are printing costs). Governments that charge large fees for compiling information simply aren't following other laws which require them to keep their information organized.
Way back when, I staffed a legislatively created Minnesota Government Information Access Council which deliberated these issues back in 1996: http://www.publicus.net/articles/mngiacreport.htm
"3. Public access to government information shall be free, and any charge for copies shall not exceed marginal cost."
Some more principles ... many of which already existed in law, but need to be restated because some yahoo developed a concept that governments need to act as stewards of the value of information and extract as much profit or revenue from their secondary use (as if that will keep our taxes down!) which continues to crop up again and again. "Of, for, by" is all I have to say.
II. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ACCESS COUNCIL PRINCIPLES
The recommendations that are forwarded in this report are based on the 12 guiding principles that were adopted by GIAC in January 1996. Those principles are:
1. Access to government information is a fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy.
2. Responsive provision of information access and the dissemination of government information are essential functions of government.
3. Public access to government information shall be free, and any charge for copies shall not exceed marginal cost.
4. All citizens, regardless of geographic, physical, cultural, socio-economic status or other barriers, shall have equitable and affordable access to government information.
5. The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other information access policy laws must be complied with and enforced at all levels of government.
6. Privacy is a right that must be maintained and protected in the context of changing technology.
7. Government information shall exist in the public domain to the greatest extent possible.
8. Government shall ensure that government employees and citizens have the tools, applications, training and support for electronic access.
9. Interaction among citizens, governments, businesses and organizations shall be promoted through the use of information technology and networks.
10. Citizens shall be enabled and encouraged to be consumers and producers of electronic information and services.
11. The State shall ensure that all citizens of Minnesota have the benefits of Universal Service.
12. Effective competition in telecommunications services in Minnesota is an essential component of effective access and interactive use of government information and services in electronic form.
Cheers,
Steven Clift
simeøn
What about letting the Gov recover costs by advertising?
The recent move by the NY Times to open its archive highlights the
compromise. They now offer their archives freely, with plenty of
advertisements along side.
Another proven model is to have advertisements inside RSS/XML feeds.
Just like with TV syndication, embedding ads around valuable content
is a good way to generate revenue.
Peggy Garvin
products:
GAO has a Comptroller General's decision at
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/307317.pdf
What is informative is why this specific case is an exception to the general
rule that federal agencies should *not* accept advertising in their
publications and why they can't use non-appropriated funds to pay for
specific activities unless specifically authorized to do so.
The decision says, "although there is no governmentwide legal restriction,
federal policy is generally opposed to commercial advertising in federal
publications." In support, the decision cites the "Government Printing and
Biding Regulations," Title III, sec 13. You can find this document at
http://www.house.gov/jcp/jcpregs.pdf (even though the House has not set up a
website for the JCP in this congress). The document is admittedly
out-of-date, but this particular policy statement would seem to transfer
easily from print pubs to online info.
This is an interesting thread. There is more on the gov info and pricing
topic from both CRS and GAO -- as well as from other sources. A lot of it
varies depending on the agency's mission and statute, however, so it may be
helpful to focus specifically on legislative info.
Peggy
Josh Tauberer
> John Wonderlich wrote:
>> Thanks, Chris.
>>
>> This brings up an interesting point. I'm wondering what criteria
>> we might apply to decide when a cost recovery model is appropriate
>> for public information access.
>
>
> Way back when, I staffed a legislatively created Minnesota Government
> Information Access Council which deliberated these issues back in
> 1996: http://www.publicus.net/articles/mngiacreport.htm
*That's* what we're missing at the federal level.
Ari Schwartz
Sean Moulton
Thanks. Already been passing the list around the office, we've got about 30 reports we are targeting so far. I'll pass along more to some friends and family that have volunteered for the CRP-corps. So we should make a nice dent in this list.
Thanks.
Sean
Sean Moulton
Director, Federal Information Policy
OMB Watch
1742 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 234-8494
Fax: (202) 234-8584
From: Ari Schwartz [mailto:a...@cdt.org]
To: openhous...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Sean Moulton [mailto:smou...@ombwatch.org]
Sent: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:41:55 -0500
Subject: New OpenCRS Fugitive List
Combined Federal Campaign #10201