Martin to blame for broken process at FCC, congressional memo claims : Martin says he’s following procedures set in the Clinton administration

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin’s troubles on Capitol Hill could be taking a turn for the worse.
House Commerce Committee investigators have recommended to Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) that hearings be held in June, citing results to date from a probe of FCC management that began late last year.
“We have conducted more than 30 interviews with current and former [FCC] employees as well as industry representatives and private citizens. The bottom line is that the [FCC] process appears broken and most of the blame appears to rest with Chairman Martin,” stated an April 28 staff memo to Dingell and oversight and investigations subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).
The FCC was not the only focus of the six-page memo, which laid out a schedule for upcoming hearings and provided status reports on investigations in various industry sectors that fall under the full committee’s jurisdiction.
“We have no comment at this time,” said an FCC spokesman.
Martin has attempted to be responsive to congressional concerns. Since the beginning of the year, the FCC chief has held monthly press briefings to preview upcoming votes and to field reporters’ questions on telecom issues generally. In addition, the FCC has begun a new policy of giving the public three weeks’ notice of open-meeting agenda topics. Last year, the Government Accountability Office revealed the FCC informs stakeholders – lobbyists, corporate insiders and others – ahead of the public about which proposed rules are scheduled for votes. Such advance notice helps lobbyists better time their advocacy efforts.
“No hearings have been scheduled,” said a House Commerce Committee spokesman.
In early December, Dingell wrote Martin to raise concerns over an apparent lack of transparency in the FCC’s regulatory processes. “Given several events and proceedings over the past year, I am rapidly losing confidence that the commission has been conducting its affairs in an appropriate manner,” stated Dingell at the time. “While this is certainly not true for every commission proceeding, a trend appears to be emerging of short-circuiting procedural norms, suggesting a larger breakdown at the agency.”
The committee informed Martin in early January that it was initiating a formal investigation of FCC management practices. Then, on March 13, Democratic and Republican committee leaders issued a sweeping request for documents dating back to January 2005, including internal memos, travel records, e-mails, talking points, phone logs and meeting schedules of Martin, Martin’s staff and other commissioners.
One of the problem areas under Martin has been delays of open meetings at the GOP-led FCC, with Martin and Democratic commissioners at times trading barbs over blame. Martin said he has kept with recent precedent in running the agency.
“Today, commission processes and decision-making time frames remain essentially the same as the general decision-making procedures established nearly 10 years ago under Chairman William Kennard,” Martin said in a Dec. 11 written reply to Dingell. “These procedures were modeled on procedures outlined from the commission’s then-general counsel William Kennard during Reed Hundt’s tenure as chairman. During my tenure, I have endeavored to follow these same general procedures and time frames established by my predecessors in order to give commissioners adequate time to review proposed orders and rules.”
Kennard and Hundt served in the Clinton administration. Martin and his immediate predecessor, Michael Powell, were appointed by President Bush.
Martin has been subject to criticism that he has strayed from decision-making procedures of past FCC chairmen.
Martin counters that he is not the primary cause FCC meeting delays. In the same Dec. 11 letter to Dingell, Martin stated: “Unfortunately, many of the delays we have experienced with respect to the starting time of open meetings have resulted because commissioners have waited until 24 or 48 hours before the designated start of the commission meeting to provide input, and have continued to provide edits up to and past the time the meeting was scheduled to begin. While it might be more orderly to enforce the prior, I would be concerned that it would significantly reduce the opportunity to reach a compromise with my colleagues.”
Dingell also has pressed Martin on whether he provides other commissioners relevant data and analysis upon which a proposed rule or an order is based and on whether the FCC under his stewardship has altered its document retention policy.