Delegated Authority: Serious Objections and Solutions

I am privileged to work at an agency with incredibly dedicated and talented staff. Most personnel at the FCC are hardworking public servants, intent on diligently carrying out our work overseeing the particular communications industry. The Daily Process shows how much they accomplish everyday on a wide range of issues. Generally, We support their efforts.

Notwithstanding my support for the staff’s work, there are certain aspects of the FCC’s duties that should be reserved and resolved by the full Commission. Chief the are matters that are new or even novel. The FCC’s rules reserve new or novel issues for any Commission vote—and there are good reasons with regard to doing so. That way the full Commission has got the opportunity to set precedent on issues of first impression that can have significant and long-lasting legal plus policy consequences. It is also helpful for the particular Commissioners, with their broader perspectives, to behave on issues that may have implications with regard to other segments of the communications market. Moreover, it ensures that parties that want to challenge final FCC decisions are able to do so in a timely manner. It does small good to have a decision be made a decision at the bureau level when everyone knows the result will be appealed to the full Commission (unless the goal is to intentionally fail to act on an application with regard to review).

At times, the particular Commission has, by order, given additional authority to the Bureaus plus Offices, beyond what is already supplied for in the rules. Such ad hoc delegation can sometimes be permissible. However , looking back over the last 30 years, that appears to be the exception, not the norm. And past delegations shouldn’t become a justification for future delegations. Why am I hamstrung by a decision in order to delegate an issue to staff produced by a Commission years ago?

Additionally , given that some of our recent disagreements have fallen along party lines, it is extremely problematic for the Commission to have a 3-to-2 vote that includes broad delegation to the staff to address a subject area further. As a minority office, it is bad enough to have your opinions and concepts rejected as a whole and also have little to no input with an item (unless you completely ignore your principles). It is worse to see the extension of those decisions expanded on for years to come by a bureau below delegated authority. While I wholeheartedly admit that I was not elected and therefore not directly answerable to the American people, my colleagues and I are subject to confirmation by the Senate, resulting in a nearer level of accountability to the democratic procedure than that maintained by a agency or office chief.

Over the past few years, it seems more and more function has been delegated and it now appears that there is a renewed effort in order to push even more of the Commission’s function to its staff. That may be due, in part, to a desire to speed up the particular agency’s decision-making process. While that is a worthy goal, I endure ready to act quickly on any issues presented to the full Commission. And using hold off as an excuse doesn’t hold up to some review of the facts. If you examine the speed at which this Commission is determining items, it should stack up against any Commission in recent time. For instance , the public circulation list contains couple of items and those that are pending have never been subject to lengthy delays brought on by Commissioners.

Accordingly, changes to our delegation practices are in order. First and foremost, a Commissioner should have the proper to request any item be knocked up to the full Commission for quality. In fact , some people already thought this was in the Commission’s rules or normal FCC practice but recent products have proven otherwise. Perhaps there may be some time limit attached in these restricted, specific circumstances (e. g., 30 days), but to foreclose the option completely is misguided. What is so harmful about allowing Commissioners to really vote on an item?

Second, there should be a codification of the 48-hour rule with appropriate modifications. There is a practice shared by a few bureaus that the Commissioners are informed 48 hours in advance of an item’s release; other bureaus provide 24-hour notice and others provide zero. The particular 48-hour time frame should become standard across the Commission to allow Commissioners time to decide whether they would like to request an item be decided by the full Commission. This also would address the problem that will, once issues are delegated, it really is difficult to follow the decisional path of a bureau, making it harder to measure the overall impact of FCC rules on industry and consumers.

Lastly, the scope of any delegation should be limited under any circumstances. Beyond the current new and novel standard, there should be limits on what is permissibly delegable. In the past, some controversial issues that were decided on the fast consisted of rough frameworks or describes (e. g., term sheets). This cannot be acceptable to punt a good item’s entire fate to a agency. That is no way to operate an agency which has so much impact on the American economic climate. Thankfully, our Chairman and the current Commission has never chosen this path. But to prevent its reoccurrence at some time, there should be clear guidelines on what could be delegated and what cannot.

Fixing the delegation process should be a priority for the Commission. If the Commission is unwilling or unable to do this, I trust the Congress may review the issue in further detail.

No Responses to “Delegated Authority: Serious Objections and Solutions”

By submitting a comment here you grant a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at admin's discretion.