Public Interest Groups Say Private Meetings with Commissioners Should Be Banned

Public Knowledge and CFA acknowledged Tuesday that, in the FCC’s word, such meetings “provide a valuable opportunity for parties to converse with Commission staff, addressing concerns and questions in an interactive manner that is not possible in written filings.” But they said, “The value of these presentations comes at a cost: unlike written presentations to the Commission, it is not always clear to those not in attendance what information was actually presented during oral ex parte presentations."

The groups said those attending the meetings often file only a brief statement afterward about what was discussed. “If most oral ex parte presentations are dedicated to repeating arguments already advanced in written filings, they may be largely redundant and unnecessary,” they said. “Instead of providing an opportunity to discuss issues, all too often oral ex parte presentations provide a pretext to pressure decision makers. This type of presentation is both a waste of Commission staff time and a disservice to the public.” If the FCC doesn’t outlaw these meetings it could require instead that they be taped and put on the Internet or that a commission staff member not involved in the proceeding be assigned to record the contents of the meeting. “No matter which option the Commission decides to implement, or decides to make available to Commissioners and Bureaus to implement, one change is vital,” Public Knowledge and CFA said. “If a party has a new argument for the Commission, it should be forced to present that argument in a detailed, written filing."

The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates said requiring detailed written filings on ex parte meetings is critical. “For parties like NASUCA that lack the resources of many in the industry, written ex parte communications -- when considered with equal weight compared to written accounts of oral meetings at the Commission’s offices and elsewhere -- can help to ensure that the record is balanced. Thus it is especially important that information about such oral communications be widely, promptly and accurately available."

The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors said the FCC can improve transparency by enforcing current rules. “Although the proposed rules will be a significant improvement toward increased transparency, true transparency requires an enforcement of those rules and enforcement of the existing rules,” the association said. “The proposed rules will not have any effect in improving transparency and fairness if they are not enforced."

Other commenters had more-modest recommendations. Verizon and Verizon Wireless supported a proposal by the commission to allow two business days for parties to file ex parte notices after making oral ex parte presentations and said the rules should be changed so that almost all comments are filed electronically. Verizon also supported an FCC proposal that the sunshine period before a meeting start at midnight after the sunshine notice. “This change would create a bright-line standard and eliminate ambiguity and confusion about the timing of Sunshine,” the carrier said.

AT&T objected to a proposed requirement that parties be required to summarize “all” data and arguments made during the presentation, not just the “new” data and arguments offered. “This proposal is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive,” the carrier said. “Once data and arguments proffered by interested parties are on the public record, this purpose is fully met. Indeed, the Commission cannot rely on data not in the public record in its decisionmaking process.” The company also opposed a proposed requirement that parties disclose more information about themselves and their interests in the proceedings. “AT&T believes that requiring such additional information is unnecessary,” the carrier said. “In the vast majority of instances, the Commission is well aware of the interests of parties participating in Commission proceedings, and to the extent it is not, it can seek additional information from those parties."

The Media Access Project said the rule changes proposed make sense in general, but the FCC proposes to give staff too free a hand in rejecting as defective petitions for reconsideration. “Three of the categories which the Commission identifies for delegation involve subjective determinations that can frequently become intertwined with the merits of a petition,” MAP said. “In these cases, MAP believes that petitioners are entitled to review by the Commission and not by the staff.”