There are several passages, however, which could be taken to add up to as much:

The free flow of information between the government and the public is essential to a democratic society. It is also essential that the government minimize the Federal paperwork burden on the public, minimize the cost of its information activities, and maximize the usefulness of government information.

Because the public disclosure of government information is essential to the operation of a democracy, the management of Federal information resources should protect the public’s right of access to government information.

Systematic attention to the management of government records is an essential component of sound public resources management which ensures public accountability. Together with records preservation, it protects the government’s historical record and guards the legal and financial rights of the government and the public.

The open and efficient exchange of scientific and technical government information, subject to applicable national security controls and the proprietary rights of others, fosters excellence in scientific research and effective use of Federal research and development funds.

Federal Government information resources management policies and activities can affect, and be affected by, the information policies and activities of other nations.

The availability of government information in diverse media, including electronic formats, permits agencies and the public greater flexibility in using the information.

The Chief Information Officers Council and the Information Technology Resources Board will help in the development and operation of interagency and interoperable shared information resources to support the performance of government missions.

(d) In determining whether and how to disseminate information to the public, agencies will: (i) Disseminate information in a manner that achieves the best balance between the goals of maximizing the usefulness of the information and minimizing the cost to the government and the public;

(ii) Disseminate information dissemination products on equitable and timely terms;

(iii) Take advantage of all dissemination channels, Federal and nonfederal, including State and local governments, libraries and private sector entities, in discharging agency information dissemination responsibilities;
(iv) Help the public locate government information maintained by or for the agency.

How must agencies avoid improperly restrictive practices?

Agencies will:

(a) Avoid establishing, or permitting others to establish on their behalf, exclusive, restricted, or other distribution arrangements that interfere with the availability of information dissemination products on a timely and equitable basis;

There’s a lot there, but they never seem to fully address the problems that come along with the use of proprietary data formats. I’m wondering how helpful it would be to have this addressed more formally, and perhaps in a way that applies to both Congress and the executive (since this is an OMB circular).

Also, notably, this circular directs each agency to appoint a CIO, and outlines accountability mechanisms for them, and also mentions the Council of CIOs.

The GAO is responding to a congressional request for information on electronic documents dissemination, and ends up discussing the GPO, LOC, and FDLP in great detail. Apparently they considered transferring the FDLP from the GPO to the LOC.

Also, the report lists the essential documents which must continue to be printed, regardless of how digitized we become.

For more background on the document, see this post, and for updates, I’m keeping notes on this page, from which future updates will likely be pulled.

-John  (start review)

foreword:
compiled by the Task Force on the Documentation of Congress of the Society of American Archivists Congressional Archivists Roundtable, coming from 1989’s “Understanding Congress: A Bicentennial Research Conference”.  “the fragmented nature of congressional primary source documentation” is partly responsible for the lack of scholarly writing on the legislative branch.  Report is a “study of the archival sources that document the operations of Congress.”

Preface:
“Because the documentation of Congress, in particular, most directly reveals the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives, it is especially crucial to preserve evidence and information about the legislative process and make it accessible to the public.”  (gives great detail on problems with public access: “fragmented and geographically scattered; collections are often voluminous, of complex arrangement, inadequately indexed, and in poor physical condition; contents of many collections are uneven, with unexplained gaps in information; and repositories that receive these collections frequently lack the resources to provide state-of-the-art arrangement, description, and archival preservation.”  Project undertaken by the Task Force on Congressional Documentation of the Society of American Archivists’ Congressional Archivists Roundtable (that’s correctly transcribed).  “many of its suggestions will take years to be carried out; others can be effected immediately.”  “Among the most pressing needs are actions to improve the documentation of legislation, representation, congressional leadership, political activities, and programs of congressional support agencies.  Other recommendations are aimed at better documenting Congress’ relations and interaction with media, the executive and the judicial branches, lobbyists, and think tanks.  Finally, steps are suggested to improve documentation of the administration of Congress’ to fill gaps in the historical record through structured, coordinated oral history interview programs; and to improve the preservation of congressional sources.

Intro:
Report organized into congressional “functions”, “documentation”, and “recommendations”.  (apparently there’s a 1978 report from the National Study Commission on the Records and Documents of Federal Officials, which “recommended that office files and personal papers of members of Congress be legally designated as federal records with guaranteed public access after fifteen years” (this wasn’t implemented, but that report would be useful to find).  This report led to a 2 day conference, where they decided to publish a handbook on member records management.  1985 then saw a 2 day conference on documenting Congress, put on by the “Dirksen Congressional Center and the national Historical Publications and Records Commission” (another great report to find)  This conference led to the creation of the Congressional Archivists Roundtable of the Society of American Archivists (which, in turn, led to the current day 2008 Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress (link).  (The Congressional Archivists Roundtable appears to be defunct, perhaps being defunded in the mid 90’s?)  “the “importance” [of congressional material] had not led to a determined effort to systematically appraise and preserve a documentary record of Congress.” (page vi)  Problems archivists face: “the information explosion, the computer and telecommunications revolutions, insufficient resources for archival work as government and repository budgets tighten, and the lack of clearly defined long-term strategies and action plans to accomplish overall documentary objectives.”  The response to this is a strategy, which matches the organization of this document (functions, documentation, and recommendations).    The report then lists participants.

Page ix lists contents, listing the major topics to be examined: Institutional Setting, the Legislative Process, Representation, Political Activities, External Relations, Administration and Support, Research Use of Congressional Collections, Appendices, and Notes.

Summary Report and Recommendations
Repeats problem.  “Historical records do not simply materialize.”  They’re trying to balance the needs of three authorities: members and officials of Congress “individually responsible for the on-site management of the information that is collected and maintained in their offices”, NARA’s CLA, and the “literally hundreds of archival repositories across the country [that] preserve and provide access to the personal papers that are deposited in them by the members”.  This listing seems to me to be a result of their institutional setting, my take on the jurisdictions at work in congressional information access can be found here.

Major Findings:
1. “Congressional committees are relatively, although not uniformly, well documented, [but] there is great variation in the documentary quality of individual members’ collections”  This conclusion strikes me as a result of writing in the mid 1990s, when paying meaningful attention to legislative affairs through the Internet was rather impossible.  There was little difference then between “well documented” and “publicly available (online)”, where now that difference is quite clear.  What is “well documented”, like committee hearing transcripts, or the upcoming schedules for committee hearings, in the archival sense, can also be useless for those hoping to actually watch Congress in action, even in time for upcoming elections, which is a much lower bar than the near-real time awareness lobbyists need in order to be legislatively relevant.  Thus the report’s focus on member records, which were managed in a much less standard manner then.

2. The need for a “coordinated retention plan that meets the long-term needs of Congress” as applied to congressional support agencies.  The GAO was doing well, the (now defunct) Office of Technology Assessment and Government Printing Office had partial programs, and the CRS and CBO had none.  Again, no real mention of OTA and GAO providing public documentation while CRS does not.  Our expectations of finding things online has led to a new set of expectations.  (well, that and the expectation of equal access to publicly funded documents, since CRS reports are sold through private companies.)

3. Executive Branch and Judicial Branches are doing a rather good job, but are relevant here nevertheless.

4. Other sources they feel have been thitherto overlooked: nat’l, congressional, and individual campaign committees, political party organizations; and congressional member organizations and caucuses.  (still true, 16 years later)

5. Member documentary repositories are hard to use, recommend better practices here.

6. Member materials will be better processed if offices hire and train archivists, and keep up with documents processing.

The Report then launches into specific recommendations, lining up with the table of contents, but in summary form.

More background discussion can be found here.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO): CBO intro PDF from their website, see also Congressional Budget Act of 1974

General Accountability Office (GAO):

Library of Congress (LOC):

Government Printing Office (GPO)

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

Chief Administrative Officer (of the House) (CAO)

Speaker of the House (link)

Secretary of the Senate (link)

Senate Rules Committee (link)

Senate Sergeant at Arms (link)

Committee on House Administration (CHA)

Joint Committee on Printing (JCP)

Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGA)

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (link)

Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress (link)

Senate Historical Office (link)

Legislative Resource Center (LRC )

Executive Branch

General Services Administration (GSA), (executive branch)

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Judicial Branch

Federal Judicial Center (FJC)

The reason this is interesting to me is that we like to capture reality in data. The Library of Congress and GovTrack both systematize (or in computer jargon “normalize”) the bill-becomes-a-law process. At every point in the game, a bill, in our data formats, is either in-progress, enacted, dead, etc. It must be in one of these states. After all, the constitution outlines exactly what states a bill can be in, so any bill *must* be in one of these states.

But if we’re not sure what state a bill is in, what state do we put it in in our data? There’s also the more important question- What do the lawmakers do if they disagree about what state a bill is in? (Actually, I would prefer to phrase it as “what state they are in”, but that’s another story.) Wikipedia describes (what the editors of the page claim is) a current debacle over H.R. 1585: National Defense Authorization Act FY 2008:

In December of 2007, President George W. Bush pushed the pocket veto into murky waters by claiming that he had pocket vetoed H.R. 1585, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,” even though the House of Representatives had designated agents to receive presidential messages before adjourning. The bill had been previously passed by veto-proof majorities in both the House and the Senate [JT: and thus a traditional veto would have been futile].

So was the bill (pocket) vetoed or not? Is the bill still in-progress? Assuming it was not pocket vetoed, after 10 legislative days without a traditional veto it becomes law, and us citizens would hate to be on that 11th day without either resolution on the pocket veto matter or a traditional veto, because then we as a country will not know whether this bill has become law. (Another question: How might the Supreme Court assert jurisdiction over this question.)

But back to the data. At one point, some time after Dec. 28, someone in the House responsible for updating the bill status information shown on THOMAS entered a new status line:

Dec 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed by President.

GovTrack picked up on the change and shows that status currently, much to the confusion of several people emailing me about it. Looking back at THOMAS, it seems like someone realized that that was apparently quite a constitutional (if not political) claim and retracted that update, because it not longer says that.

In many cases citizens complain when the government takes things back, hiding information previously made public. That’s definitely not what I am getting at here. THOMAS is forced to show *something*, and when it doubt… well, what can you do but roll back history until we figure out what the next legislative step actually *was*.

The preface describes it as a “study of the archival sources that document the operations of Congress.”  The “archival sources” described in this document comprise the entire body of public congressional information, the substance of both administrative minutiae, and legislative substance.  Just as we are interested in the capacity of the public to be conscious of its legislature, we should be interested in the legislature’s capacity to take stock of itself, to engage in constructive introspection.

I came across this document being repeatedly cited while reading the yearly reports of the Advisory Committee on the Preservation of the Records of Congress, and still find rich irony in the fact that the document itself wasn’t available in a digital form.  That’s not to say anything against the Advisory Committee, which seems to be an outgrowth or a result of the task force that wrote S.Pub 102-20, and also inspired H.R. 5241 from the 101st Congress, a bill reorganizing the National Archives, among other things.  The Advisory Committee seems to be among the very best of examples of an organization created to meet an emergent need, cutting across jurisdictions and what one of its members recently described to me as “negotiated terrain” (a description I very much liked).

The complex problem of coordinating congressional information is difficult, but not for the usual reasons.  As far as preservation goes, the administrative coordination is already in place, and it seems that the research (and even enforcement ) about disclosure mechanisms has been in place for quite some time.  What has been lagging is not administrative will, but the digital culture and popular expectations that make IT investment a real priority.

This is clearly changing, as new staffers expect to represent their members of Congress online without encountering arcane restrictions, as citizens expect to encounter government information and services through the same search engines they use for research and shopping, and a new brand of journalism is springing up that depends not on cultivating trusted sources through personal relationships, but on careful consideration of primary sources–exactly those “archival sources” this document so comprehensively describes.

While some disclosure will be resisted for as long as the benefits of secrecy outweigh the outcry over obstruction, and privileged access will always be at odds with the broader public interest, it is good to see that a detailed anatomy of congressional information has already been constructed in great detail.  The question that remains is how well will Congress adapt to new expectations of information access — a question that necessarily comes along with a digitally empowered citizenry.

The OTA was recently reinstated, although in a different form, when Congress passed (and President Bush signed) the most recent legislative branch appropriations bill. I work for the Sunlight Foundation, and we helped push for this measure to be adopted. (see http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/06/04/ota-endorsement/ or http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/06/07/ota-renewed-gets-25-million/ )

Instead of reinvoking funding for the still-authorized OTA department, the new approps bill adds funding to the GAO’s budget, letting them venture explicitly into the realm of technological assessment. This is probably a good thing, given GAO’s excellent reputation, and that their work is public, as are their evaluative criteria.

Having a congressional support agency with an explicit mandate to provide research on technological issues will go a long way toward giving congressional decisions on technology the background they need to be sound, and re-funding an OTA, whether as a stand-alone agency or as part of the GAO is the right way to go about it.

A separate issue entirely, however, is whether Congress has adequately organized their administrative appendages to address their own technological coordination issues. Having dedicated researchers available will help lead to better policy, but without clear jurisdiction, proper implementation and foresight get passed over, as agencies and departments struggle to prioritize and act within their budgets. Complex incentives surround the question of whether or not to take on a problem that is outside your department’s statutorily authorized responsibilities. A central non-political body coordinating these responsibilities across Congress would streamline the process of implementing and planning new technological transitions, a very complicated task for such a complex institution.

What I didn’t get into, however, is the main thrust of Lessig’s post, that is, should the US have a CTO position?

I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m inclined to suggest that centralizing and institutionalizing technological expertise leads to better policy and decisions. The issue I have with this suggestion, however, is one of jurisdiction. How does the complex of fought-over jurisdictions, executive orders, tradition, and expectations come to cough up a new cabinet level position? The history American choices addressing emergent needs by creating new administrative appendages is probably full of illustrative examples, which might suggest the best way to centralize technological expertise in American executive administration.

Is this best filled by an informal advisory role, a cabinet level position, an Office of Management and Budget office, a separate technological affairs office, a temporary task force? Consciously considering the choices beforehand makes it less likely that we choose whatever is most expedient when the issue is raised in earnest.