In This Issue Congressional Budget Resolution Highlights   Federal Budget Surplus Keeps Growing   Latest Round of CTCs   Internet Taxation Briefing   Building One-Stop Shops for Government Information   Justices Get Off "Ten Most Wanted" List   Tech Access for Disabled Users   Agencies Given Conflicting Directives on Paperwork Reduction   Most Agencies Receive High Marks   Identifying Corporate Polluters   "Cyber Security" Could Carve Out FOIA   OMB Burden Reduction Initiative Invites Public Comment   Revisions to OMB Circular A-130   Addressing Digital Divide Skepticism   Tech Help: Translation Tools   Notes and Sidebars   Congressional Budget Resolution Highlights The congressional Budget Resolution, passed on April 13 (H. Con. Res. 290) largely on party lines, presents an austere picture for domestic discretionary spending. The Budget Resolution is not signed by the President, but binds Congress to certain guidelines. Here are several highlights from the Budget Resolution:

• Overall discretionary spending was $600.3 billion, $310.8 billion for defense and $289.5 billion for non-defense spending. This is a 7% increase for defense spending;
• Large cuts in domestic discretionary spending, 6.3% below a baseline that includes inflation. If Republicans protect certain programs, such as education and veterans' programs, as they have said they would, other non-defense discretionary programs would be cut by at least 12%;
• A large tax cut of at least $150 billion over 5 years, which is estimated to balloon over a ten year period. The resolution also allows an additional $25 billion over five years in tax cuts. Add in the debt service costs (roughly $20 billion) and the five year estimate (roughly $195 billion) will use up the entire non-Social Security surplus plus $25 billion of the Social Security surplus;
• Any use of the Social Security surplus will trigger an equal amount deducted from available discretionary spending in the following year. This "look-back" provision says that if Social Security surpluses are used to finance general operations in FY 01, an equal amount will be deducted from discretionary spending in FY 02.
• Creates a supermajority point of order in the Senate against advanced appropriations of more than $23.5 billion. Forward funding was a technique used to avoid spending caps. Thus, the change helps to make the spending caps more binding; and
• Creates a supermajority point of order in the Senate against non-defense emergency spending. This, also, makes it more difficult to bust the spending caps.

The limits on domestic discretionary spending have created quite a stir among Republicans, even though the Resolution passed. Several key leaders, such as Rep. John Porter (R-IL), chair of the House Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Committee, voted against the Resolution. Back to Top Federal Budget Surplus Keeps Growing How big is the federal budget surplus? BIG and getting BIGGER! In July, the government will provide revised estimates of the surplus, which is currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be between $3.2 trillion and $4.3 trillion over the next 10 years. Many private forecasters are predicting that these numbers will go up. Meanwhile, the estimate for the current fiscal year also continues to go up. Originally, OMB estimated this year's surplus to be $167 billion; CBO guessed a little higher, $179 billion. Now, private forecasters are predicting it to be about $210 billion, roughly $40 billion above the OMB estimate. The Treasury Department released figures on Thursday, April 20, that lend support to the private forecasters. According to a statement released by President Clinton, the "budget balance for the first half of this fiscal year improved by more than $30 billion from the first half of last year." So what's this mean? Several possibilities. First, the added surplus, which is considered "non-Social Security surplus" could be used by Republicans to strengthen their argument for a tax cut. Or it could be used for debt reduction. Clinton said when discussing the Treasury numbers, "If we maintain our fiscal discipline, we can make America debt free by 2013 for the first time since Andrew Jackson was President." His intent is to use most of the added surplus for debt reduction. Third, although less likely, it might be a way to provide resources for needed investments in education, health, and other areas of our national needs. This is less than likely because of limits imposed by the budget resolution passed by Congress on April 13 (see budget resolution story). If the 10 year estimate is revised upward in July it could give more opportunity for presidential candidate George W. Bush to push for his large tax cuts and his modest spending proposals. It is unclear how Al Gore would make use of the added surplus. Back to Top Oh Say Can You CTC On April 18, the U.S. Department of Education announced the next round of grantees under its Community Technology Centers (CTCs) program. Under this round of funding, $44 million will be distributed through 3 year grants to establish CTCs and make computers and Internet access available to low-income and underserved individuals and families in urban and rural communities. The centers are supported, in part, by matching commitments totaling more than $42 million from local and state governments and businesses. Over 70 projects, representing community centers, schools, libraries, housing developments, public-private partnerships, and other community institutions were funded to the develop some 214 CTCs in 28 states and the Virgin islands. More information on the CTC program and the grantees is available online. These projects and similar efforts will be expanded through a Department of Education effort called the America Connects Consortium, which will support and maintain the Department's Community Technology Centers program. Proposals are being accepted for a lead organization to help establish the Consortium [see section titled "TITLE: BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT: "America Connects Consortium"]. Back to Top Internet Taxation Briefing A briefing on the stakes for the public and the nonprofit community in the debate over taxes on Internet sales, and a proposed extension of the moratorium on these taxes, was held on April 13, 2000. OMB Watch was a co-sponsor of the meeting, along with AFSCME, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and National Governors' Association. The intent of the briefing was to give organizations new to the issue (among which we count ourselves) some background on the issue, the level of revenue potentially lost and its possible impact on the ability of state and local governments to do the work of government and serve their constituents. There are estimates that states have lost more than $525 million in sales tax revenue from Internet transactions over the last year, and that it could jump to $20 billion for remote sales by 2003. Ed Shafroth (National Governors' Association) spoke on the perspective of the states and of efforts under way among some 30 states to create some uniform definitions and practices in relation to taxing vendors not physically located within their respective jurisdictions. Participants also received an update on the status of bills in Congress and Lisa Cowell spoke on behalf of the "E-Fairness Coalition" (representing retail and real estate interests) on the overlap of their concerns with those of the organizations at the meeting. Finally, some possible next steps were discussed. For further information, contact Ellen Nissenbaum of CBPP, 202-408-1080 or Ed Jayne of AFSCME, 202-429-1188. Back to Top Building One-Stop Shops for Government Information An important legacy of the Newt Gingrich era was creation of Thomas (thomas.loc.gov), a web site to help the public find and obtain congressional information that was created in January, 1995. Despite its success, the executive branch has done little to create a comparable portal or one-stop to help the public locate information holdings in the government. In fact, the Administration's lack of leadership has been taken as a message that the private sector should provide such services, regardless of cost to the public. However, this may be changing. Recent reports suggest that the White House now wants to institute a web portal that helps the public get access to government information— and that it should be created before the Clinton administration leaves office. The National Partnership for Reinventing Government has hosted a series of meetings over the past few months to discuss e-government. While these meetings have focused mostly on transactions to serve the public (e.g., obtaining tax forms), they also dealt with improving access to government information. As a follow-up to the first meeting, President Clinton issued two directives, addressing Use of Information Technology to Improve Our Society and Electronic Government, one of which included a requirement to establish an easy-to-use portal for the public to get information from the government. Since that time, new energy has been given to a project called WebGov that was launched by the General Services Administration nearly two years ago. WebGov would organize and centralize an access point to government information. The rumor is that WebGov will be made available in phases. The first phase may happen very quickly and will focus on providing an access point to online information holdings. The next phase will deal with online government transactions. Back to Top Justices Get Off "Ten Most Wanted" List On April 17th, the Supreme Court began making its Opinions available online through a link to a site run by the Government Printing Office. The address for the Court is www.supremecourtus.gov. Decisions will be available at this site within a few hours after their 10 a.m. release. Some universities already offer court-related web sites. For example, Northwestern University's Oyez Project site provides recent court rulings and analyses, while Cornell University's Legal Information Institute site posts court rulings soon after they are released. In OMB Watch and CDT's recent study, The Ten Most Wanted Government Documents, an Official Supreme Court Web site was named the second most wanted document. Other information to be available on the official web site includes the weekly orders granting and denying new appeals; the court's schedule and argument calendar; the court's rules; bar admission forms and instructions; visitors' guides; news releases; and general information, like biographies of the justices. Back to Top Tech Access for Disabled Users Vol. 1, No. 2 of the OMB Watcher Online contained an article on standards expected to be released by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board). The standards would require the government to insure information provided through government use of electronic and information technology is accessible to both federal employees and private citizens with disabilities (under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act). The standards, which seek to reduce the need for individual accommodations, will become part of federal procurement regulations. The Standards for Electronic and Information Technology includes a link to the Department of Justice report, Information Technology and People with Disabilities: The Current State of Federal Accessibility. Because of a delay in releasing the standards, they may not take effect until the end of September, 2000. Click here for more information Back to Top A Funny Thing about the Paperwork Reduction Act... HREF="http://www.house.gov/reform/neg/hearings/index.htm">In a hearing on April 12, Rep. David McIntosh (R-IN) heaped scorn on the Clinton administration for its implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. The PRA envisioned a 30 percent reduction in federal paperwork between fiscal years 1995 and 1999. Yet Nancy Kingsbury of the Government Accounting Office testified that paperwork had in fact increased during this time. The bulk of the increase, she said, came from IRS: "Nearly 90 percent of the governmentwide increase during fiscal year 1999 was attributable to increases at IRS..." This is somewhat amusing to us. Paperwork has increased at IRS because of tax reforms recently enacted by Congress— tax reforms that McIntosh himself voted for. For instance, in 1998, Congress enacted a reduction in the capital gains tax (among many other changes in the tax code), which distinguished between "long-term gains" and "short-term gains." These changes virtually demanded more IRS paperwork. Yet McIntosh seemed oblivious to this in his opening statement: "...last year, IRS, which accounts for nearly 80 percent of the government-wide paperwork burden on Americans, identified no specific expected paperwork reductions in 2000. None!" What McIntosh, and other members of Congress, need to understand, however, is that they have given agencies conflicting directives. On the one hand, the PRA requires substantial reductions in paperwork— conveniently leaving it up to each agency to figure out exactly how to accomplish this. And on the other hand, Congress keeps passing laws that require new collections of information. In many cases, the merits of these laws justify additional paperwork (for instance, EPA must collect information on emissions to enforce the Clean Air Act). But it should not be forgotten that Congress— not the executive branch— is most responsible for increases in paperwork. Without Congress, agencies would have no authority to collect any information at all. View HREF="http://www.house.gov/reform/neg/hearings/index.htm">testimony from McIntosh's hearing in the House Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs. Back to Top New Study Shows Most Agencies' Customer Satisfaction is High A recent survey by The Pew Research Center finds that constituents hold a generally favorable impression of most federal agencies. The study looked at the attitudes of 3,147 constituents of five federal agencies—Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Social Security Administration (SSA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—over a three-month period. The constituent base included those receiving government benefits, those subject to regulation by the agencies, and those who seek to influence government policy. Respondents made a clear distinction between agencies and the government as a whole. Views of the government have rebounded slightly in the new millenium, with 40 percent of people now saying that they trust the government at least most of the time. This rating is in sharp contrast to the 80 percent favorable ratings received by the Food and Drug Administration. Four of the five agencies received higher favorability ratings than the government as a whole—only the IRS received lower marks. Agencies generally received high marks for how they perform key functions, but generally poor ratings for how they carry out their administrative tasks. Agencies were criticized for performing too slowly and making rules too complicated. They received high marks for customer service and the three regulatory agencies (FDA, EPA, and FAA) received good marks for technical capability and the policies that result. These specific performance evaluations affect general performance evaluations, which affect overall favorability ratings. Responses varied widely by constituent groups, with those who are regulated having less favorable impressions than those who receive benefits. Agency mission was an important determinate of views—even if the agency was perceived as running smoothly, disagreement with the agency's mission led to low ratings. As a result, agencies can only address some of the factors that lead to less favorable impressions of their performances. Performance and Purpose; Constituents Rate Government Agencies: A Pew Research Center Survey Back to Top Difficulty Identifying Corporate Polluters Accountability. It's what we all want for government leaders and those who break the law. (And government leaders who break the law.) But what about corporations? As a society we have a tough time tracking how decisions made in the corporate boardroom impact the environment. We know part of what industrial facilities pollute: a law passed by Congress in the wake of the massive chemical accident in Bhopal, India that killed thousands ensures that the public can access data on releases of certain toxic chemicals to U.S. lands, water, and air. But it is next to impossible to get a reliable fix on the owners of those facilities because there is no reliable way to uniquely identify all companies owning industrial facilities in the U.S., let alone identifying what facilities around the world are owned by U.S.-based companies. For example, a search of the U.S. Toxics Release Inventory for all facilities reporting that the name of their corporate owner includes "Dupont" yielded a list of four facilities in four states reporting combined 1997 releases of over 2 million pounds of TRI chemicals and total waste of more than 30 million pounds. When we looked for TRI reports in which the parent company was listed as "Du Pont"— where the "Du" and "Pont" could be separated by a space— we find very different results: 63 facilities, over 85 million pounds in TRI releases, toxic waste totaling 569 million pounds. Dupont may also own a subsidiary that does not include Dupont in its name at all, so we have no way of ensuring that we have captured all facilities owned by Dupont. Despite our inability to name the corporate owners of facilities releasing toxic chemicals into the air, land and water in the U.S., releases of toxic chemicals at those facilities dropped 42.8% from 1988 to 1997. That's the power of information. If government is moving truly to "e-government" and harnessing the power of technology and the internet, as the President says, then its first step is to stop shielding corporate owners and give the public the ability to name names — a vital first step in holding government— and corporations — more accountable. Search RTK NET's Toxics Release Inventory data for "Dupont" (as one word) and "Du Pont". Back to Top "Cyber Security" Could Carve Out FOIA A "Cyber Security Information Act" (HR 4246) was introduced by Reps. Tom Davis (R-VA) and Jim Moran (D-VA) on April 11, 2000. This bill is the first volley coming from a push by industry to carve out an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act for information they voluntarily share with the federal government on threats to "critical infrastructure." HR 4246 is filled with vague and overly-broad definitions and a give-away exemption to FOIA. No government process is established for the designation of the new category of exempted information: "cyber security statements or other such information provided by a party in response to a special data gathering request." In fact, the government is pretty much irrelevant here— except for keeping the information secret. The way that the bill would work:

• A private entity, such as a corporation, asks a federal entity—the government—to do a data gathering;
• The private entity names itself or another private entity as the gatherer of the responses to the request;
• The fact that these two steps have occurred means that all of the information asked for and collected is protected from disclosure under FOIA.

Circle closed! And all of the public closed out— forever. As of this writing, the bill cannot be found on Thomas, which would indicate that is has not been referred to committee yet.

• OMB Watch analysis of HR 4246
• Critical Infrastructure Information — What's the Problem?

Back to Top UPDATE: OMB Burden Reduction Initiative Invites Public Comment A new White House initiative may make it harder to hold government and companies accountable for safeguarding the environment and protecting human health and would severely curtail information available under several areas, including EPA's highly-successful but limited right-to-know program, the Toxics Release Inventory. As reported in Vol. 1, No. 5 of the OMB Watcher Online, the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is targeting seven agencies to identify ways to reduce the burden of filling out forms for the federal government on a variety of topics, from releases of toxic chemicals to tax filings. OMB will be hosting a series of roundtable meetings of selected stakeholders this week. While OMB officials frame their efforts as an attempt to use information technologies to advance the work of government and not impair it, the proposals put forth for discussion and public comment would undermine the government's ability to protect worker health and safety, strengthen environmental safeguards, and protect American communities. According to discussion documents distributed to invitees, EPA is considering a proposal that would allow facilities to avoid reporting their releases of toxic chemicals to the air, land and water if they can certify that "no material change" had occurred since they filed their TRI report for the previous year. While this change could result in a significant loss in available information, it is unclear whether this proposal would help facility operators save time in meeting federal reporting requirements. Currently, the TRI program requires facility operators only to estimate their toxic chemical releases. Further, in a 1998 EPA survey only four states (Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Ohio) indicated they actively inspect facilities to ensure compliance with the TRI law. Beyond the TRI program, EPA topics to be covered include streamlining and eliminating recordkeeping requirements for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program, electronic reporting for certain reports required under the Toxic Substances Control Act, and consolidating federal air emissions reporting requirements and procedures. In addition to EPA, the OMB initiative will also include the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Internal Revenue Service, Health Care Finance Administration (the federal entity that oversees Social Security), and the Departments of Transportation, Agriculture, and Education. The public is being invited to comment on the proposals. The public can submit comments in an electronic docket at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ES Submit, then click on unregistered user submission. You will need the following information to submit a comment: - Docket ID: 7156 - Operating administration: OMB - Document Title: For EPA-related comments, select either EPA-TRI, EPA-RCRA, EPA-TSCA, or EPA-AIR The public may also submit comments via fax to 202-493-2251 or in writing to DOT Dockets, 400 7th Street, SW, PL401, Washington, DC 20590. Include the docket ID (7156) and the document title (e.g., EPA-TRI) at the top of the document. Contact us for more information. Back to Top Revisions to OMB Circular A-130 In the April 13, 2000 Federal Register the OMB Information Policy and Technology Branch published proposed revisions to OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources. The key reason behind this revision appears to be the Public Citizen litigation, Public Citizen v. Raines. The suit, filed in 1997 against several agencies, argues that these agencies had not complied with the requirements in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for agencies to inventory their information systems. Public Citizen argues that, in the 1995 revisions to the PRA, Congress required agencies to maintain an inventory of all of their information systems, rather than only their major information systems. In the background for the Federal Register notice, OMB states that the proposed revisions (to Section 9 of Circular A-130) will clearly limit the requirements on the agencies to inventory "major" information systems. Another reason for revising the Circular is to bring it into accord with other aspects of the E-FOIA Amendments. OMB specifically intends to "incorporate the guidance that OMB issued to agencies in April 1998 on implementing the E-FOIA's handbook requirement (OMB Memorandum M-98-09). When this guidance is incorporated into the Circular, OMB will rescind the 1998 Memorandum." OMB Watch has criticized this guidance as inadequate and as causing agencies to be out of compliance with the E-FOIA amendments. (See "A People Armed?", OMB Guidance on E-FOIA) Finally, the proposed revisions are to bring Circular A-130 into line with Clinger-Cohen/Information Technology Management Reform Act (ITMRA). Comments are due by Friday, May 19, 2000. View the proposed revisions in the Federal Register. Back to Top Who Got Dibs on the Digital Divide? Seeking to continue to highlight the scope of the "digital divide" in terms of its impact for all Americans, President Clinton made three stops last week on his New Markets tour, highlighting the disparity of access to technology for Americans in economically underserved and disadvantaged areas. Clinton visited East Palo Alto, CA; Shiprock, NM; and Chicago, IL. The first stop, East Palo Alto, while mostly Latino and African-American, for example, is also a low-income neighborhood of some 28,000 residents that, despite its proximity to Silicon Valley, still struggles to maintain economic viability. It also has a ratio of some 28 students for every available computer, compared to a seven to one ratio for schools in higher-income areas. Clinton next visited the Navajo Nation reservation at Shiprock, New Mexico, an area in which most residents lack even basic telephone access. Clinton then visited the high-tech COMDEX trade association show in Chicago to issue a call for businesses to devote resources to help guarantee that all Americans have access to the Internet. Critics of the digital divide point to research such as a recent Forrester Research study of 80,000 U.S. households, for example, that suggests that the digital divide is simply one of economics—not race—and that barriers to participation are rooted in poverty. It found online access rates of 69 percent for Asian Americans, 47 percent of Hispanic Americans, 43 percent of Caucasians, and 33 percent of African Americans. The findings have been used by critics of the digital divide to suggest that the gaps between races are small and, if left alone, the market will close whatever divide might exist. Another study, conducted by Cheskin Research, highlights the progress made in closing the digital divide affecting Hispanics. The study found that Hispanics are buying computers faster than the general population. There was a 68 percent increase for computer purchases in the past two years compared to 43 percent for the general public, even though on average they fall $11,000 below household median income levels. A full 25 percent of Hispanics earning between $10,00 to $20,000 have computers versus 31 percent of the national population at the same level. A study by Harris Interactive found that disabled and senior citizens are increasingly left behind in the digital divide. While some 54 percent of all adult Americans access the Internet, the study found that only 18 percent of those 65 and over have Internet access, and that only 29 percent of adults with disabilities are online. The perception, certainly, is that seniors and disabled people are cut off from technology because they can't afford it. In general, those who argue that there is minimal, if any digital divide, miss or ignore some basic points:

• First, access to hardware and computers is not the same as being in a position to participate through the tools and connections to a wired world. Only 27 percent of rural Native American households have access to a computer, versus some 42 percent of all American households. Moreover, some 19 percent of Native Americans in America have Web access compared to an average of 26 percent of American households. This is compounded by the fact that 53 percent of Native American households do not even have basic telephone service, versus the 6 percent of all American households lacking basic phone service.
• Second, the quality of access to technology does differ depending upon race, education level, income, literacy, location, gender, physical ability, and age. Consider, for example, that K-12 schools are the primary, if not sole, Internet access point for 30 percent of America's rural population. Nationally, nearly 22 percent of all people who access the Internet do so without the benefit of home access.
• Third, there is a parallel digital divide in terms of access to content. The Cheskin study mentions that a potential barrier to online participation through mainstream Internet web sites and portals is the lack of content centered around community and government information that speaks to particular needs and interests. According to a recent audit of 1,000 web sites by The Children's Partnership, this gap puts potentially some 21 million Americans at a disadvantage for online participation.
• Fourth, basic access to technology does not presuppose an ability to keep pace, at an affordable level, with technology enhancements and developments identified as necessary for and sustained participation online.

The author of the Forrester research, Ekaterina Walsh, states in the study that the divide, if not about race, is not exclusively about income either. It is, Walsh states, "... kind of a medley of factors," which include age and general attitudes about technology and the opportunity it can create. Lest there be any doubt that those working to address the digital divide do not favor a narrowing of efforts, President Clinton, during his visit to COMDEX, noted that, "...[t]he new information economy has the potential, at home and around the world, to lift more people out of poverty more quickly than at any previous period in all of human history—and that tapping that potential is actually in our enlightened self-interest." Back to Top Tech Help: Translation Tools The Web is predominately a creature of the English language. Some figures, in fact, estimate that 85% of existing Web content relies on the English language. Yet the World Wide Web is accessed by many around the world for whom English is not their first or second language. This lack of language-specific content potentially shuts out as many as 32 million American who speak English as a second language. What if you don't speak another language, or lack access to a translator? Some of the web-based translation tools might start to look attractive. Do they work? Click here to find out. Of course, if you were subscribed to NPTalk, you'd know the answer in at least five languages... Your comments are always welcomed! Notes and Sidebars Job Announcement OMB Watch is seeking a person to play a large role overseeing our work related to strengthening nonprofit advocacy and tracking nonprofit sector issues. If you have a commitment to social justice, experience working with the nonprofit community, and excellent verbal and written skills, please check out our job announcement. The deadline is May 1st. Chemicals, the Press & the Public The National Security Council has updated their journalist's guide to reporting on chemicals in the community. The 2000 edition includes tales from the trenches: reporters' war stories; gives useful tips on using your computer as a reporting tool, offers story ideas using RMP data, talks about how reporters can identify community hazards, discusses data limitations, and includes lists of questions you can ask State and local officials and industry representatives. To order your free copy, call EPA's document center at (800) 490-9198 and ask for EPA# 550-B00-003. State Associations Conference The National Council of Nonprofit Associations (NCNA) holds its 11th annual conference this year in New Orleans, LA. The conference, entitled "State Associations: Building on Our Strengths and Preparing for the Future," will look at building capacity for public policy, strengthening the sector, fundraising, technology, and other topics of interest. The conference will be held June 10th-13th. Visit the NCNA web site for more information. Environmental Conference The National Environmental Health Association will present its millenium conference, the "2000 Hazardous Materials and Waste Conference," June 15th-18th in Denver, Colorado. The conference will provide educational training sessions, assessments of a wide variety of hazardous materials products and services, and opportunities for networking and sharing personal stories among a diverse group of those who are concerned about hazardous materials. For more information, visit the NEHA web site. Fellowship The Union Institute Center for Public Policy is now accepting applications for its Changing Charity Fellowship Program, a non-residential fellowship established to support the promotion of people of color in nonprofit management. The fellowship runs July 2000-December 2001 and involves doing applied research and participating in strategic discussions and activities in Washington, DC. The deadline for applications is May 5th. Visit the Changing Charity Fellowship Program web site for more information. Information Chief Named Earlier this month, a new head of the Office of Information and Technology Policy within the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB was named. He is Dan Chenok and, apparently, he has been acting in that capacity since September of last year. While at OIRA, Chenok has served as the Desk Officer for the Department, and as the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) contact for Labor and OSHA.