It appears that President-elect Barack Obama and his administration are showing that they’ll still be fully embracing technology during his four-year term.
As ABC’s Jake Tapper reports, during a meeting with Congressional leadership, Republicans asked for more transparency compared to the financial systems bailout, and suggested putting the public works stimulus online a week before Congress votes on it. Obama explained they had already thought about it.
Obama turned it over to incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel who essentially said they would do the Republicans one better. They’re planning a Google-like search function to show every program funded by the stimulus package, whether it comes in under or over-budget, whether it is meeting its intended purpose, and how many jobs it is creating.
Full blog post, right here.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Rep Eric Cantor is suggesting that the Bill be available at least a week BEFORE the house needs to vote on it. What Obama/Emanuel respond with is how it will be “searchable”, but possibly only after it has been enacted so that every program funded by the “stimulus” can be monitored.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Bellinghammer, I read it as, since he said “one better” was that not only would they put it online before the vote, that if it was enacted there would be a strong level of accountability for the public right online via the search functions, etc.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:43 PM
If the Obama team puts this stimulus bill out as a searchable online document prior to Congress having to vote on, that will be a great and real change to Washington DC. Too long both parties have depended on keeping the the people in the dark and feeding them manure. Once they do this there will be no turning back and the public will insist on this policy for all legislation. Would work wonders in Olympia and Bellingham also. This is a great public policy.
Now if Obama, who is somewhat of a rookie when it comes to foreign policy and military intelligence, would have only picked a CIA director with some “intelligence” experience, anything, I would feel safer. Sarah Palin has more foreign policy experiance than Panetta. I know, its different for if you are a man. Two rookies when we are at war, is irresponsible and is caving to the left who do not fear the dangers that lurk out in the real world.
Nice hard hitting Editorial on the Kremen/McEacheran self serving pay raise. This is what a real Editorial looks like. Link: http://www.nwcitizen.us/ Good article on the new jobs at the Fairhaven Shipyards. New family wage paying jobs, no taxpayer subsidy, expanded the tax base.
Can’t find either story in the Herald.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Doug, we already wrote about the dry dock and I was the one who wrote the stories about McEachran and Kremen. I haven’t read the stories at NW Citizen, and won’t, but I doubt there’s anything new there.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Sam,
I don’t understand. You will read the NY Times, but not the NW Citizen, even though one has local impact. Mr. Kirsh’s piece on Kremen is an excellent editorial.
Do you have your fingers in your ears, or what? A monopoly attitude.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Doug, I didn’t know it was Kirsch, but I speak with Greg often outside of that Web site. I read the NY Times because there are reporters working their tails off to report some of the most important information in this nation and around the world. I will not get into an argument here about why I do or don’t read NW Citizen. I simply don’t, and that’s that.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Methinks ST should read whatever he wants but the Ole Gray Lady has become more of a case of yellow journalism than it has become a source of unbias news reporting and that folks may be a big cause of it’s demise, don’t you know!
AFY!!
January 6th, 2009 at 2:55 PM
It seems to me that the NW Citizen has more relevance here at home, than the NY times which is fighting for its life. Well maybe there is the connection.
Mr. Kirsch’s article makes some valid points. it may be that our McEachran has breached his fiduciary duty to the Council and lined Kremen’s pocket with a substantial amount of the taxpayers monies.
The prosecuting attorney is good at pointing out when criminals fail to abide by the law, but I am wondering whether the opposite is true.
Courage and duty are rare things indeed, these days.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Doug, I wrote about that months ago now. I’m confused … were you on a boat or something? I could have sworn you were right there commenting on my articles. Go read them again, I remark on McEachran’s involvement and when he knew what he knew, etc. etc. So far I’m unconvinced there is anything NEW to report. I am a NEWs reporter, Doug.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:12 PM
You are an excellent reporter Sam, and yes you did report on this fiasco extensively.
The question raised by Kirsh so poignantly is simply: Was there a legal duty that McEachran owed the Council, that he did not fulfil?
I have never, ever heard a definitive answer to this question. Nor can I find anywhere whether this legal issue was even asked of someone who is trained in law and unbiased. The Prosecuting Attorney is a powerful position, and expecting him to be held to the highest standards, when he is holding people to high standards everyday, is important when it comes to the public’s trust of government.
In today’s world there are many who owe us the “Duty of Care” that have let us down. If we do not enforce it, we will continue to be let down. Whether it is Wall Street, Main Street, or our government emplyees, I think all should be held accountable, regardless of position, don’t you?
I believe that McEachran owed the County Council the legal “Duty of Care”, which is part of his fiduciary duties, and he failed to exercise this duty of care when letting Kremen know how to get his pay raise, in contravention of the Council’s known disapproval.
Did McEachran owe the Council a fiduciary duty? If so did he fail to exercise this duty? Is a fiduciary duty important?
So far I have not been able to find where any of these questions have either been simply asked, nor answered.
Definition of Fiduciary Duty: When one person does undertake to act for another in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids the fiduciary from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit in relation to the subject matter. The client is entitled to the best efforts of the fiduciary on his behalf and the fiduciary must exercise all of the skill, care and diligence at his disposal when acting on behalf of the client.
The client in this case was the County Council. The Prosecuting Attorney is the Council’s Attorney, not Kremen’s.
Does it look like McEachran followed this duty above in the Kremen secret pay raise case?
It would be nice seeing as how this pay raise and the resulting increase in retirement benefits may amount to over a $100,000 dollars, that a qualified and impartial attorney look at the situation, to see if the public was being served by those who had a “duty” to do so.
Did our Prosecuting Attorney exercise the duty that he owed to the Council?
Simple question.
Do you have an answer?
~
January 6th, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Doug, the council did ask, and I reported, why McEachran informed Kremen and not them, and I reported they were quite angry about it.