In This Issue Results of Presidential Transition Survey   Congress To Move on Integrating Environmental E-Reporting   Worst-Case Scenarios Update: Congress Won't Fund Site Security Study   Taking Green from the Greens: Is Industry Defunding Environmentalists?   Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality of Limits on Legal Services   Access to Government Information Denied   The Case for Domestic Investment   When Will the Budget Be Done?   Results of Poll on E-Government   Online OSHA Offerings Click with Public   Tech Help: Free Office Ware   Notes and Sidebars   Results of Presidential Transition Survey The preliminary results of an online survey asking nonprofits about their priorities for changes that the incoming President should make to strengthen the nonprofit sector are now available. Roughly 1,000 people from across the country completed the survey, far surpassing expectations of the co-sponsoring organizations, Advocacy Institute, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, OMB Watch, and The Union Institute. Although information about who the respondents were was voluntarily provided, most were willing to do so. Of those who did, they came from every state except Nebraska, including the District of Columbia, Liverpool, England and the Federated States of Micronesia. Of those telling us about their organization, the majority (76%) were filled out by charities (501(c)(3)s), followed by government agencies (7%), for-profit organizations (5%), and social welfare (501(c)(4)s) (4%). Roughly 9% of respondents indicated they were some other type of organization or weren't sure. Some of these were trade associations (501(c)(6)s). There was widespread praise from respondents for seeking their input about ideas for the new President. Roughly one-fifth of respondents provided detailed comments on the survey, suggesting the importance they placed on the survey. The top five topics that respondents wanted addressed by the next President, in ranked order, were:

• Campaign finance reform;
• Investing in the people and communities served by nonprofits by spending some of the federal surplus on domestic needs, such as universal pre-school, universal health care, long-term care, a livable wage for those who are working full-time year round, income supports for those without jobs, and a healthy and safe environment;
• Streamlining government grant application and reporting requirements, developing uniform application and reporting requirements where possible, and insuring coordination with federal, state, and local requirements;
• Allowing a charitable tax deduction for non-itemizers; and
• Increasing appreciation and protection of nonprofit advocacy and encouraging federal agencies to engage nonprofits in policy deliberations, such as rulemakings.

In order to turn the results of the survey into policy recommendations for the next President, an advisory committee has been established. The committee consists of over 25 leaders in the nonprofit sector covering a broad array of issues, constituencies, and locations. During October, four "virtual meetings" will be held to take on the daunting task of turning the survey results into concrete recommendations for the next administration (one meeting has already been held). As we reported previously, these "meetings" are taking advantage of internet document sharing technology with the help of the Stargazer Foundation, which is based in McLean, Virginia. The recommendations developed by the advisory committee and the co-sponsoring groups will be posted to the web page where the data is now available. Comments will be sought on the recommendations before sending them to the President. Back to Top Congress To Move on Integrating Environmental E-Reporting With industry and environmental organizations in support, the House may vote this week a bill introduced by retiring Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) pushing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to integrate its environmental reporting requirements. S. 2800, the Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of 2000, would require EPA to integrate and streamline its reporting requirements by creating standards for common data elements (e.g., facility identification, facility location, chemical identity) and by providing one point-of-contact to whom industry and states could fulfill federal environmental reporting laws and regulations. (Much of the environmental and safety information reported to the EPA is collected directly by states and transferred to EPA.) These steps will likely improve the timeliness and quality of information the public can access about environmental and human health threats. Unfortunately, however, the bill's data standards do not address the need to establish a standard for reporting facility ownership. Right now, it is very difficult to establish what entity, such as a corporation, owns which chemical-using facilities in the United States. Better reporting of facility ownership would allow government and the public to paint a more accurate and complete picture of corporate polluters as well as model corporate environmental behavior. In introducing the bill, Sen. Lautenberg noted that the bill is supported by Environmental Defense, the National Environmental Trust and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) as well as the National Federation of Independent Businesses and other trade associations. Back to Top Worst-Case Scenarios Update: Congress Won't Fund Site Security Study The U.S. Senate reportedly will not fund a Department of Justice study of anti-terrorism preparedness at chemical-using industries, according to the Working Group on Community Right To Know and U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). Congress required the study last year in the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (P.L. 106-40). The same law severely restricted the public's right to know about worst-case scenarios at chemical plants around the country. The scenarios would help neighbors understand the risks they face and help guide land use planning and strengthen safety procedures at plants that use hazardous chemicals. The Justice Department had initially estimated the study would cost $7 million but later downgraded the costs to about $750,000, according to the groups. For more information, read the groups' joint press release. The public has a right to know the danger posed by chemical-using plants but are often unaware of these risks. In addition, traditionally disenfranchised populations are often disproportionately affected. The Dallas Morning News recently reported that nearly 46% of federally subsidized apartments in the U.S. are within a mile of factories that produce toxic pollution. Back to Top Taking Green from the Greens: Is Industry Defunding Environmentalists? Electronics manufacturers such as Sony are tracking activities of environmental groups and may be working to undermine the groups' funding, according to published reports. An internal Sony presentation obtained by a reporter notes specifically the activities of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), Greenpeace, and Friends of the Earth. These and other groups are pressuring electronics makers to take responsibility for disposing or recycling of old computer parts. The Sony presentation recommends "early pre-funding intervention could be beneficial," which some observers in news accounts interpret to mean that industry may be urging philanthropists to avoid funding these groups. Electronic waste is a growing problem around the world. The piles of old computer equipment are, literally, a growing problem in the U.S.. This equipment contains chemicals such as lead, mercury and cadmium, which can, when disposed of improperly, get into the food chain and cause brain damage, kidney problems and other health problems in humans and other living organisms. The Sony presentation and related news stories are available on SVTC's web site. Back to Top Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality of Limits on Legal Services On October 4th the Supreme Court heard the case of Carmen Velazquez, a New York woman who sued the Legal Services Corporation and the United States after losing her welfare benefits. Legal Services was unable to represent her because restrictions passed by Congress in 1996 prohibit legal aid lawyers from challenging the validity of welfare reform laws. In January, 1999 Ms. Velazquez, who is being represented by the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, won a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held the restriction unconstitutional. The court found the restriction violates the First Amendment by limiting the speech rights of citizens that want to challenge the welfare laws. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected next spring. Other restrictions placed on legal services, including prohibitions on class action lawsuits and lobbying legislative or regulatory bodies, remain intact. These limits far exceed those that apply to nonprofits in general, or to other nonprofits that administer federal programs. For example, unlike federal grantees administering human services, health or education programs, a legal services program cannot use non-federal funds to lobby on behalf of its clients. The result is a two-tier system of justice, one for the poor, with limits on where relief can be sought what arguments can be made, and another with no limitations, for those that can afford it. Back to Top Access to Government Information Denied The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) reported in September that the Justice Department is denying news organizations, public interest groups and the general public access to information about how the Clinton Administration has enforced the nation's laws. The denial of access became known when the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) repudiated an agreement with TRAC to release comprehensive information describing the criminal and civil cases handled by federal prosecutors nationwide. This reversal contradicts the Administration’s – and Attorney General Reno’s – much heralded policy statements about maximum access. While signing a public information law several years ago, for example, President Clinton said his administration was "committed to ensuring the widest possible disclosure of government documents," adding that he believed "our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their government." More recently, on June 14, Ethan Posner, the Deputy Associate Attorney General, told a House Subcommittee that Attorney General Janet Reno had repeatedly stated that the FOIA laws "are at the heart of open government and democracy" and that under her leadership the department has "placed a sustained priority on improving our FOIA service to the American people." Indeed, during the course of litigation brought by TRAC, the EOUSA had acknowledged that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires that all of the case records and the vast majority of fields in these databases must be disclosed to the public. The TRAC news release notes that the "blocking of the flow of government data means that the public is unable to obtain information required to accurately judge how the Clinton administration, federal prosecutors and the federal investigative agencies actually are dealing with such subjects as protecting the environment, reducing gun violence, prosecuting pornographers and defending the American people against spies and terrorists." It also means that "for the time being it will be impossible for users to compare the criminal enforcement actions in the last full fiscal year of the Clinton Administration with those of actions taken during fiscal years 1992 to 1998." In the ongoing challenge to the Justice Department's actions, TRAC is represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group. Back to Top The Case for Domestic Investment After a string of reports optimistically heralding ever-increasing budget surpluses for the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office issued a 75 year forecast on October 6 warning of a return to budget deficits and increasing federal debt -- the result of escalating health care and retirement costs of an aging population. Even under a scenario of preserving the entire surplus for debt reduction, the CBO finds that the budget will likely go back into deficit within the next 75 years. Although debt reduction is widely being touted as the way to solve all future problems, it really is not the solution, strengthening the argument that some of the surplus should be used for increased public investment. The CBO report even talks about the need to enhance economic growth, and that one way to do that is "government spending that is oriented towards investment." The political debate continues to be between tax cuts, usually characterized as profligate, and the "fiscally responsible" and conservative policy of rapid debt reduction. There are proposals by both presidential candidates for some spending increases, but they are very modest. As economists Jeff Faux and Max Sawicky of the Economic Policy Institute argue, public investment is the third leg of budget policy right up there with tax cuts and debt reduction. Smart investment in people, communities, and infrastructure is better insurance for a vibrant economy in the future than debt reduction. Carefully thought out policies for public investment could insure an educated, skilled work force, the newest technologies, and the research capacity to deal with the challenge of a rapidly aging population. Alas, it doesn't appear that policy makers are taking the third leg seriously at all. In its report, the CBO only considered three possible uses of the surplus -- saving the entire surplus, saving only the Social Security surplus and saving none of the surplus. There was no alternative scenario about just what domestic investment could do, quite possibly because there have been no serious policy discussions about this use of the surplus. Right now, neither big tax cuts nor debt reduction will do a thing for people who are still poor, or struggling to stay in the middle-class. While it appears a fact that private enterprise and free market capitalism have lifted all boats, at least a little, there remains an important role for government as a wise investor in areas that private enterprise fears to tread. Some boats were lifted much higher than other boats. Estimates are that, in the US in 1998, the earnings of the average CEO were well over what the average worker earned -- an astounding 419 to 1. There are some boats still in the shallows. Even while market forces create new wealth and a growing economy, the market has limits, and there is a role for government, even over and above the economic definition of public investments. Economic fairness does not grow out of cutting government, and neither does economic progress. The federal government works well a means of insuring basic needs and opportunities for all Americans as well as being an important investment instrument. Public investment is another prong in creating a fair and prosperous economy for all of us. The role of domestic investment in insuring our future ought to have a strong place in the debate. Back to Top Oh When, Oh When Will the Budget Be Done? No one knows. A "state of chaos" is the best description. A continuing resolution (CR) was signed on September 29 extending funding for government through October 6. A second continuing resolution to keep the government going through October 14 was passed on October 5. Apparently there are no more CR's in the works, as an incentive to keep everyone focused on getting finished. Congress sent three appropriations bills to the President last week: Energy and Water; Transportation; and Interior. The President is expected to veto Energy and Water, because of a contested provision about the Missouri River. That means that nine appropriation bills (included the soon-to-be-vetoed Energy and Water bill) remain to be passed this week before the last continuing resolution runs out. While some of these bills may be relatively easy to move along, there are still big policy problems with Commerce-Justice-State and Labor-HHS-Education. Even though Congress is willing to add more money to the Labor-HHS bill, there are major policy differences -- the President wants specific money for class size reduction, hiring new teachers, and school construction, while the GOP wants states to be able to use the funds for whatever purposes they choose. It is obvious that the budget resolution passed by Congress was so unrealistic that it has offered no framework for appropriations funding, and that all the budget rules have fallen by the wayside. At some point the budget cap for FY 2001 appropriations that was set by law under the Balanced Budget Amendment will need to be lifted, since spending will be higher than allowable under the budget cap -- although no one knows how much. It seems likely that there will be some combined bills as well as an omnibus spending bill before the end of this session. Given the desire of Congress to leave, the President holds the cards in this one, and will probably get more funding for his priorities. This is probably good news for programs that benefit low and middle income people, but in terms of an open and comprehensible process, this appropriations season has been one of the worst. In the meantime, it's mostly wait and see, since most of the final budget negotiations will be behind closed doors. Back to Top Results of Poll on E-Government On September 28, the Council for Excellence in Government released the results of a poll conducted by Peter Hart and Bob Teeter on electronic government. Entitled, E-Government: The Next American Revolution, the study reports the results of three surveys including a public poll and smaller surveys of leaders in government and leaders in businesses and nonprofit organizations which partner with government. The poll’s revealing findings include:

• By more than a five-to-one margin (56% to 11%), the general public anticipates that the impact of e-government will be positive. Of those who described themselves as frequent Internet users, the margin was more than ten-to-one (67% to 6%).
• Nearly seven in ten Americans (68%), including those who do not use the Internet, believe that investing tax dollars in e-government should be a priority. After being given specific examples of e-government, respondents were asked again to assess its importance. Fully 77% then said that investing tax dollars in e-government should be a medium to high priority.
• By more than two to one, Americans want to proceed slowly (65%) rather than quickly (30%) in implementing e-government because of concerns about security, privacy, and access.
• Americans say the most important benefits of e-government will be first to make government more accountable (36%); second to allow more public access to information (23%); third to make government more efficient and cost effective (21%); and fourth to make government services more convenient (13%).

To view the final report, data sets and presentation, visit the Council for Excellence website Back to Top Online OSHA Offerings Click with Public The public will be finding more information online to make their workplaces safer through efforts by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA will provide tools to help workers and employers get up to speed on recommended practices as well as workplace standards, compliance requirements, the Bureau for National Affairs (BNA) reports this week. OSHA's strategy is to target audiences and provide specific information they need for their job. For example, OSHA recently posted a tutorial on workplace safety in nursing homes in which users can select a specific room in a virtual nursing home and learn about good safety practices and OSHA standards for that area. Visit OSHA's web site at www.osha.gov and let us know what's useful or what you'd like improved on OSHA's site. Back to Top Tech Help: Free Office Ware Looking for a way to beat the price of a commercial office suite? NPTalk took the cheapest route possible to locate a collection of tools for word processing, spreadsheets, and databases to get you started (hint they are all free). More tools will be added on an occasional basis. Subscribe to NPTalk Back to Top Your comments are always welcomed! Notes and Sidebars Job announcement OMB Watch is seeking a Staff Assistant/Web Writer to write and edit articles for our web site, compile a biweekly online newsletter, perform administrative duties (including some web site administration), respond to inquiries about public databases, and other duties as assigned. Good position for entry-level college graduate with interest in public policy and nonprofit sector. Please see our full announcement. Privacy Forum "Privacy - Protecting Citizens' Electronic Data," a forum for CIOs, IT staff, webmasters, and the like, will be held in Washington, DC on October 17 from 9:00 to 11:30. The free forum, put together by the Government Services Administration, will focus on data privacy issues. Registration is due by Friday, October 13th. For more information, visit GSA's IT Policy web site. Digital Divide Reports Stage One of the American Library Association's (ALA) Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP) study, "Public Library Internet Services: Impacts on the Digital Divide," has been completed and the ALA has released its final report. The Stage One Final Report reveals the results of initial data analysis and preliminary site visits of selected state and public libraries, and will be used to inform decision makers about library technology funding and related programs such as E-Rate, Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), and the Gates Foundation awards. To obtain a copy of the report, visit the OITP web site. The next stage of the study will include analysis of national data on the E-Rate program. The U.S. Department of Education recently released its initial data analysis of the E-Rate program data for libraries and schools.