The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

13 Best Practices for Open Government Webpages

In the last seven days, each agency in the executive branch launched an Open Government Webpage (OGW) as part of the Open Government Directive (OGD). But while the Open Government Dashboard — the White House's scorecard for agency execution of the OGD transparency initiatives — might have us believe that each agency's website is of equal quality, results have varied.

In the spirit collaboration and knowledge sharing, POGO is respectfully submitting 13 best practices for Open Government Webpages. Culled from OGWs across the executive branch, each recommended practice has already been implemented by at least one agency. For each best practice we highlight an agency that is doing something well and also an agency that could benefit from implementing this practice.

Three themes emerge out of this list. First, agencies have not been emphasizing the accountability aspects of the OGD. The work of agency Inspectors General (IGs) — the internal agency watchdogs —  is largely ignored on the OGWs. IGs play a fundamental role in holding agencies accountable, and OGWs should be featuring their work as prominently as information about data sets, Freedom of Information Logs, and transparency evaluations. Agencies should also make clear their thinking behind previous open government initiatives, particularly when it comes to last month's release of high value data sets.

Second, agencies should be doing more to promote their transparency initiatives. Too many agencies ignored existing communication infrastructures — Twitter followers, press corps, and Facebook fans — and mutely launched their webpages into oblivion. Agencies must initiate conversation in order to meet the Open Government Directive's goal of increased dialogue and collaboration.

Third, agencies must demonstrate a long-term commitment to transparency by integrating OGWs into their homepages. Agencies should signal that openness is a regular part of their operations, not something relegated to an obscure room in their digital dungeon.

Be sure to let us know if you have any observations or additions. Without further ado:

Morning Smoke: Ex-Blackwater Employees Say They Witnessed "Systematic" Fraud in Contracts With State Department

Former Blackwater employees accuse security contractor of defrauding government by Carol Leonnig and Nick Schwellenbach [The Washington Post]

Dodd, Corker to work together on financial reform by Brady Dennis [The Washington Post]

Gensler Turns Back on Wall Street to Push Derivatives Overhaul by Ian Katz and Robert Schmidt [Bloomberg]

US judge demands details on $150 mln SEC-BofA deal by Jonathan Stempel [Reuters]

Coast Guard commandant says budget cuts will hurt by Spencer Hsu [The Washington Post]

Industry sees few changes with new House defense appropriations chief by Megan Scully [CongressDaily]

Congressional Oversight and Criticism by Alyssa Rosenberg [FedBlog]

Analysis: Transparent leadership starts from within by Roger Schwarz [Government Executive]

Time for a Different Kind of "Energetic Reaction" at Los Alamos

POGO has obtained a recent internal memo from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) demonstrating a steady lapse in enforcement of safety policies at the Los Alamos Site Office. The contents don't paint a pretty picture, noting a sense of déjà vu about recent safety episodes, including (but "not limited to") shock and burn of a worker, several explosions, and a certain incident with a large-bore powder gun:

These events are similar to each other and to prior events, indicating that prior corrective actions have not been fully effective or have degraded with time. Without appropriate management focus, evaluation, and response, these could become precursors to incidents of even greater significance, up to and including serious injuries or fatalities.

In spite of these incidents, so far this year all signs point to decreased oversight at the NNSA. In January, we discovered that an NNSA Administrator implemented a six-month moratorium on NNSA-initiated functional assessments, reviews, evaluations and inspections. And on top of that, the Department of Energy's independent oversight body has not scheduled any inspections for the year 2010. 

With that mind, POGO decided to go straight to the top on this one: this afternoon we sent a letter to President Obama, requesting that he intervene and designate someone in the White House to rein in these problems at Los Alamos and other nuclear weapons labs across the country. You may read that letter here, but don't forget to glance at the memo and learn all about the most recent "energetic reactions" that have plagued the lab.

-- Bryan Rahija

Morning Smoke: Commercial Real Estate Loans Problematic for 3,000 Small Banks

TARP Panel: Small Banks Are Facing Loan Woes by Carrick Mollenkamp and Maurice Tamman [The Wall Street Journal]

Wall St.’s Biggest Bonuses Go to Not-So-Big Names by Eric Dash [The New York Times]

Norm Dicks could be boon for Boeing by Jen DiMascio [Politico]

Fed in Talks With Money Market Funds to Help Drain $1 Trillion by Craig Torres and Christopher Condon [Bloomberg]

2 ex-employees say Blackwater billed government for prostitute by Carol D. Leonnig [The Washington Post]

Budget request addresses some open government costs by Aliya Sternstein [Nextgov]

D.C.'s Second Blizzard: An Avalanche of Open Government Websites

In perfect tandem with the second major snowstorm to hit the District of Columbia this season, the White House and federal agencies on Friday steadily began to release the second deluge of open government materials as required by the Open Government Directive (OGD).

These materials came in the form of Open Government Websites for each agency in the executive branch, with the first sites beating the OGD's February 6 deadline going live on Friday afternoon. The White House, for its part, followed up with the launch of an Open Government Dashboard to help track agency performance on the transparency initiatives outlined in the OGD.

POGO was hoping that each agency would take this chance to shed light on the decision-making behind the release of three "high value data sets" back on January 22, the first checkpoint outlined by the OGD. Public response to these data sets was mixed: the Sunlight Foundation pointed out that only 16 of the 58 data sets released by the major agencies had been previously unavailable online, and a coalition of good-government groups warned the White House that "repackaging old information is of marginal value, yet that is what many agencies have done with their recent postings on Data.gov."

Some agencies did indeed offer a glimpse into their thought processes with the data sets. The Department of Defense (DoD), for example, explains why each of its three data sets qualifies as high value and what makes each data set new. Here's what DoD says about its Freedom of Information Logs:

WHAT MAKES THIS A HIGH-VALUE DATASET?
The dataset provides valuable insight on the types of information being sought by members of the public from DoD under the FOIA process, making it a useful tool in understanding what DoD operations are of particular interest to the public.

HOW IS THIS NEW?
This data has not been previously released in a machine-readable format and this release will make it easier to analyze.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also offers "underlying rationale" for why each of its own data sets is high value.

We're curious what you think — are these explanations satisfactory? What else would you like to see on the Open Government Websites? Head over to the Open Government Dashboard for a pile of links.

-- Bryan Rahija

Morning Snowke: Did the Deputy Secretary of Defense Violate Ethical Conduct Rules With $1 Billion Contract Award?

Taiwan’s $1 billion missile buy from Raytheon under review by watchdog group by Michael Richardson [The Examiner]

If Rep. Dicks takes lead on Defense panel, Boeing may benefit by Roxana Tiron [The Hill]

TARP Watchdog Launches Audit of Bailout Contracts by Paul Kiel [ProPublica]

No Longer Too Big To Fail? Credit Rating Agency Thinks So by Shahien Nasiripour [The Huffington Post]

QDR’s Author Pushes Back by Greg Grant [DoD Buzz]

BAE Systems To Pay Fine To Settle Bribery Case by Matthew Potter [BNET]

Senate Committee Talks a lot of "Oversight," But Lacks Oversight of Nominee

Today’s confirmation hearing of President Obama’s three nominees to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) did little to relieve POGO’s concerns about longtime nuclear power proponent William Magwood’s ability to serve as an independent NRC Commissioner and stringent overseer of the nuclear power industry.

None of the Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee probed Mr. Magwood's handling, or lack thereof, of security vulnerabilities at the lab once called Argonne National Laboratory West.

Nor did the Members’ questioning shed light on precisely what Mr. Magwood has been doing for the last five years as a consultant for Advanced Energy Strategies (AES) and president of Secure Energy North America Corporation (SENA). As there is very little public information available about these two companies, POGO was hoping that the Committee would have carefully examined the work of these companies and asked Mr. Magwood to disclose their investors and officers, and any specific activities he engaged in to develop opportunities for foreign investment in U.S. energy projects.

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) asked Mr. Magwood if any of his former clients would come before the NRC. Mr. Magwood said “no.” However, the extent of this questioning did little to assure the public that there was a thorough vetting of the actual issues that would challenge Mr. Magwood's independence as a Commissioner. For example, in 2007, an AES client, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., applied for Design Certification of the Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR) Standard Plant Design. The staff of the NRC is currently performing a detailed review of that application that will likely conclude in 2011. POGO would have wanted to hear Mr. Magwood’s answers to the questions:

• "Is there any conflict of interest with you overseeing the staff and the  the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards' decision making?"

• "How can you ethically fulfill your duty to oversee this decision, given that Mitsubishi was one of your firm’s former clients?"

While Committee Chair Barbara Boxer opened the hearing with her warning that the NRC should not reverse course to the days of the conflicted Atomic Energy Commission, and Mr. Magwood spoke eloquently about the challenge of the NRC to increase public trust in the oversight of nuclear power, the confirmation hearing did not give him a chance to address the detailed concerns that the public asked the Committee to raise.

The Committee Chair promised to schedule a vote on the nominees as soon as possible -- likely at the end of February -- after the nominees respond to any questions for the record posed by the Members.

-- Ingrid Drake

FAA Whistleblowers Speak Out About Uncorrected Safety Violations Tonight

Looks like the next round of winter weather isn't the only good reason to stay inside tonight -- at 9pm EST, PBS airs a new FRONTLINE investigation on regional airlines, featuring disturbing information about uncorrected safety violations provided by the Association of FAA Whistleblowers (AFW).

The investigation takes a hard look at the mistakes that led to the Colgan Airlines flight that crashed in Buffalo, NY, killing 50 people. As the Wall Street Journal put it in their preview last week, "It is a frightful as well as infuriating history of warnings disregarded, whistle-blowers punished and profit-seeking at any cost."

Be sure to check local listings for irregular air times and watch the preview here.

-- Bryan Rahija

Photo by Travlr (Flickr), used under Creative Commons license

Morning Smoke: A Quicker, more Nimble SEC?

S.E.C. Enforcers Focus on Avoiding Madoff Repeat by Jenny Anderson and Zachery Kouwe [The New York Times]

Agencies Open to the Public – Some Not So Much by Jennifer LaFleur [ProPublica]

No Exit in Sight for U.S. As Fannie, Freddie Flail by Nick Timiraos and James Hagerty [The Wall Street Journal]

Judge Questions Bank of America’s New Deal With S.E.C. by Louise Story [The New York Times]

Senate bill aims to boost small business contracting by Robert Brodsky [Government Executive]

OMB seeks more contracting oversight, insourcing by Elise Castelli [Federal Times]

Senate Holds, Filibusters, and the “Nuclear” Option by Steve Aftergood [Secrecy News]

The Death of an Appropriations Machine by Mike Lillis [The Washington Independent]

NRC Needs Nuclear Power Regulators, Not Promoters

It’s not often that POGO lobbies to defeat a presidential nominee. However, we have felt called to speak out as loud as we can in opposition to President Obama’s nomination of William Magwood for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the grounds that he does not have the independence from the nuclear power industry to regulate it, nor the security oversight background. Along with two other of the President’s nominees to the NRC, Mr. Magwood will come before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for a confirmation hearing tomorrow. 

Last week, POGO asked its email subscribers to contact the Committee and express opposition to Mr. Magwood’s nomination.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined a plan to build a new generation of nuclear power reactors. POGO does not take a stance on nuclear power, but does strongly believe that the regulatory body that licenses and inspects nuclear power reactors should be independent, active, and unconflicted. Mr. Magwood does not satisfy those key criteria.

As we have outlined in a previous blog post, POGO believes Mr. Magwood’s dozens of years promoting nuclear power make him unqualified to be a regulator of the industry.

There is also evidence that Mr. Magwood will not effectively address the security threats that are a major issue facing the NRC. In 2004, POGO investigated the security at Argonne National Lab West (ANL-West), which contained 8-9 tons of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium. During that period, Mr. Magwood was the most senior official responsible for security at ANL-West. POGO found serious inadequacies. For example, POGO was told by multiple sources that the guard force at ANL-West was 50% undermanned and that ANL-West needed $1 million for quick security upgrades, but Headquarters Nuclear Energy refused them the funds. 

To be clear, POGO is not anti-nuclear. We have a great deal of respect for the current NRC chair — who arguably is pro-nuclear — and likewise we do not oppose the other two nominees (also arguably pro-nuclear) who will face the Committee in tomorrow's confirmation hearing. A demonstrated commitment to effective oversight is what matters to POGO and sadly, Mr. Magwood does not fit the bill.

You can learn more background and find out how you can help here.

-- Ingrid Drake and Peter Stockton

Morning Smoke: Senator Places Hold on Obama Nominee to Force Action On Tanker Contract

Ala. senator blocks nominees over Air Force tanker contract by William Matthews [Federal Times]

Bank of America E-Mails Show Lehman, Not Merrill Was Buy Target by Linda Sandler [Bloomberg]

Mystery Men of the Financial Crisis by William Cohan [The New York Times]

Obama's 'Volcker Rule' May Not Survive Congressional Skepticism by Alison Vekshin [Bloomberg]

QDR Garners Poor Reviews by Greg Grant [DoD Buzz]

Photo by Flickr user photoreb

The Politics of Contracting: International Edition

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court voted to lift most restrictions on corporate spending in federal elections, a widely condemned decision that many people, including President Obama, want Congress to “correct.” We cynically noted on this blog that not many members of Congress would be willing to give up such a potentially lucrative new source of campaign cash.

TPMMuckraker reports that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is one of those lawmakers on Capitol Hill averse to looking a gift horse in the mouth. McConnell is denouncing efforts to correct one of the most troubling consequences of the decision — the prospect that money from foreign corporations will flood U.S. elections. Ironically, as TPM points out, McConnell “has raked in campaign cash from a subsidiary of a major foreign defense contractor that's currently being investigated by the Justice Department for bribery.”

The contractor in question is UK-based defense firm BAE Systems, currently the sixth largest contractor in our Federal Contractor Misconduct Database. BAE Systems is currently under investigation for making billions of dollars in improper payments to the former Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in the years after securing a multi-billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The U.S. criminal inquiry is proceeding under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a law that seems to be all the rage recently at the Department of Justice.

The TPM article got us thinking about our misconduct database. It turns out that ten of the 100 largest contractors in our database are headquartered in foreign countries. Most of them have misconduct instances, and more than half have been politically active in the last few election cycles, too (click the link under "Contractor" for a contractor's FCMD profile; click under "Contributions" for Center for Responsive Politics data):

Contractor	Top 100 Rank (FY2007)	Location of Corporate HQ	Federal Contract $ (FY2007)	Instances of Misconduct (Since 1995)	Misconduct $ (Since '95)	Campaign (PAC) Contributions
BAE Systems	6	United Kingdom	$10,119,200,000	6	$ 1,900,000	YES
Royal Dutch Shell PLC	27	Netherlands	$2,118,400,000	21	$1,121,100,000	YES
Agility (f/k/a PWC Logistics)	33	Kuwait	$1,869,900,000	1	$0
Accenture	68	Bermuda	$ 686,500,000	5	$ 13,900,000	YES
Government of Canada (CCC)	69	Canada	$ 680,600,000	1	$ 6,000,000
GlaxoSmithKline	70	United Kingdom	$ 680,000,000	18	$4,208,600,000	YES
SK Holdings Co., Ltd.	80	Korea	$ 623,300,000	0	$0
Rolls-Royce PLC	82	United Kingdom	$ 612,700,000	0	$0	YES
Daimler AG	98	Germany	$ 517,500,000	9	$ 443,200,000
AP Moller-Maersk A/S	100	Denmark	$ 517,100,000	1	$ 3,000,000	YES

McConnell and others who concur with the Supreme Court point out that existing law prevents foreign nationals and companies from spending on U.S. elections, but as the chart above illustrates, that law does not cover the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies or foreign-owned companies that incorporate in the U.S. TPM succinctly lays out the problem: “Even if a U.S. subsidiary uses its own funds to contribute, and the decision to contribute is made only by Americans, the money nonetheless comes from a subsidiary of a foreign corporation, whose officers can hardly be expected not to act with that interest in mind.”

-- Neil Gordon

See also: Politics of Contracting: International Edition, Part II