Page 26: of Marine News Magazine (September 2013)

President Obama pledged in his ? rst four years of of? ce to have a more transparent government. He issued a memoran- dum on transparency and open government on his second day in of? ce directing agencies to make information more available to the public in a timely manner. Sadly, the Admin- istration has failed to achieve this goal and its decision making processes have become more opaque. The public has a right to know how the Administration develops its policies and this can only occur if the Administration is open and transparent. Transparency is most lacking in the Federal Advisory Committee Act committees. The government spent almost $3.5 billion over the past 10 years on these groups which were established to provide objective and publicly acces- sible advice to Executive branch agencies. One such com- mittee is the Shipping Coordinating Committee (SCC) led by the State Department and U.S. Coast Guard. The group provides advice on international maritime and en- vironmental matters but determining membership is like ? nding a needle in a haystack. The committee member- ship is not posted on the Coast Guard or State Depart- ment websites so it is unclear on who is advising the gov- ernment. The only readily accessible information is that the committee charter was renewed in February 2013. In addition to not knowing who is on the SCC, it is also dif? cult to research past meetings because transcripts and audio recordings are not posted on the Coast Guard or State Department websites. The only way to gain information is to have attended these meetings or go to Coast Guard head- quarters in Washington to listen to the audio recordings in person. The Coast Guard was recently asked transcribe the meetings and post the notes on its website but declined to do so because of lack of funding. Similarly, the Coast Guard also denied a request to post public comments related to the SCC meetings on its website. Absent in-person attendance, the average American doesnt know how the SCC developed its guidance and whether or not the public agrees with it. Public participation at the SCC meetings is actively dis- couraged. During a recent meeting, government represen- tatives ? sitting on the dais ostensibly to listen to public comments ? talked with one another instead of paying at-tention to those critiquing the SCC guidance. The State Department representative who was supposed to be pro- viding a brie? ng on an environmental matter told public attendees that she didnt want to bore them so she skipped over the relevant details. After her cursory brie? ng, she told public attendees that they could talk with her at a later date. The purpose of the SCC meeting is to share information with everyone at the same time ? it is not to omit details, especially when the Administration is not forthcoming about posting meeting notes. The problem is further compounded by the Administrations haphazard approach in retaining the public comments that are pro- vided at the SCC meeting. The Coast Guard and State Department did not ask public participants at the meeting to provide them with written copies of their statements. If the Coast Guard does not collect written statements and does not transcribe the meeting events, then why is it ask- ing for public participation? People spend a lot of money to attend these meetings and provide their comments; this money could be better spent elsewhere if the government isnt going to accept and retain them. I gnoring the publics comments allows the Coast Guard and State Department to take positions that are counter to U.S. business interests. In the recent public meeting, comments were given question- ing the governments position on the Hong Kong Interna- tional Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships. U.S. ship recyclers oppose this conven- tion because it contains standards that are inconsistent with current U.S. law. Foreign recyclers under this convention are held to a lesser standard than their U.S. counterparts. Despite this inconsistency and vocal opposition from U.S. ship recyclers, the government is leading efforts to develop international implementation policies. These efforts are oc- curring without a clear explanation from the government on why it is has taken a leadership role and how the convention will impact U.S. businesses.The Obama Administration must re-examine its trans- parency policies. Billions of dollars have been spent fund- ing FACA committees. Surely, some of this money could be spent transcribing meetings so that individuals outside of Washington, DC will know who has provided advice to the government and how it was developed. The public and U.S. businesses want to know that the government is look- ing out for their interests and that they are part of the team ? not a nuisance placed in a back corner to be forgotten.OP/EDCOLUMNWhere is Government Transparency? K. Denise Rucker Krepp began her career as an active duty Coast Guard of? cer. After 9/11, Krepp was a member of the team that created the TSA and DHS. Krepp also served as Chief Counsel at the U.S. MarAd and Special Counsel to the General Counsel at the U.S. DOT during the ? rst Obama administration. 26 MNSeptember 2013MN Sept2013 Layout 18-31.indd 268/29/2013 11:14:27 AM