Open government

President Donald Trump refused to authorize the release of a Democratic rebuttal to a Republican intelligence committee memo alleging that FBI and Justice Department officials abused their power to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The White House said it could not release the Democrats' memo because the Justice Department "has identified portions...which it believes would create especially significant concerns for the national security and law enforcement interests." That explanation stands in stark contrast to his release of the GOP memo.

At its own discretion, the Federal Communications Commission has chosen to block the release of records related to a video produced in 2017 in which FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and a Verizon executive joke about installing a “Verizon puppet” as head of the FCC.

The practice of printing hard-copies of the “FCC Record” should be eliminated. To be crystal clear, I am not suggesting that we keep its contents or information from the public.  On the contrary, I suggest that it makes little sense to continue to publish paper copies when other mechanisms are more consumer friendly, cost-efficient, and easier to access.  Instead, the Commission should make its documents centrally located and easier to find for interested parties electronically, making paper copies of the Record unnecessary on a going forward basis.  If Encyclopedia Britannica coul

The White House took down the popular “We The People” petitions website, started by Barack Obama’s administration, in December, with the promise that the site would be restored by “late January.” As of 3 p.m. on Jan. 31, the site, which allows citizens to post petitions that require a White House response when they meet a certain number of signatures, is still down.

As citizens increasingly use digital tools to engage with government, federal agencies should weed out fake comments to create a more robust public comment system. If agencies are required to solicit public input, it should take on a form that the agency can easy incorporate into new rules. The Administrative Procedures Act could not have anticipated the digital communications tools available to citizens seven decades later. An updated method of collecting feedback would require commenters to verify their identity, or at least verify they are human.

Can a federal court decide whether the White House is breaking presidential record-keeping laws, such as by using encrypted apps that automatically erase messages once they’re read or issuing executive orders to avoid creating a paper trail accessible to the public? Government attorneys told a federal judge in Washington that the answer is a sweeping “no,” in a case that could help determine whether open-government laws are keeping pace with frontiers in communications technology.

While I previously proposed fixes to improve the circulation process by making the documents public and addressing what amounts to stale items and those converted to Open Meeting items, we also need to update and improve the process for voting circulation items.  Unlike items disposed of at the Commission’s monthly Open Meetings, items circulated to Commissioners for consideration outside of the meetings (those on the Circulation List) have no voting deadline until they enter “must vote” status.

[Commentary]  Bill Gates is setting aside $80 million and over 24,000 acres to build one. Over in India, they’re planning to construct over 100 of them. They’re smart cities (SC), and they’ve been in development longer than you might think. This landscape of the future is gaining momentum as it enters the third stage of its evolution: the “city as a service.” The United Nations predicts a world population of 9.7 billion by 2050, leading to an urban population boom of 63%.

[Commentary] Releasing the network neutrality draft order early had some unintended consequences. It created a flurry of activity when everybody with an opinion felt they had to re-litigate their arguments. Far too many chose it as an opportunity to hurl invectives at those with differing opinions, contributing to the downfall of productive debate. Despite the increasing vitriol during the weeks before the vote, releasing the draft order prior to the Federal Communications Commission’s vote is one key to making the FCC regulatory process more transparent.