Today, after reading such disappointing news coming from actions taken by Democrats in the House and well as Democrats in the Senate, prompted me, as a citizen, to call and attempt to speak to a deputy of my representative in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, as well as a staff member on Mr. Waxman's Oversight & Government Reform Committee.
I called Speaker Pelosi's two offices: First her San Francisco office, then her Washington DC Speaker's office. In both calls, I asked to speak to a Deputy on staff who is on point for the Speaker's initiative she has called "Draining the Swamp". The local SF office told me they would connect me to someone, and then connected me to a general voicemail comment line. This was not what I had asked for. (MORE re my efforts to have my government be responsive to my questions, as a taxpaying citizen. Starting with phone calls to Pelosi's offices, then to Waxman's.)
Reaching by phone the Washington DC office of Speaker Pelosi, I was told that there was no one who could help me on that issue. I pressed further saying, this is one of two major themes Speaker Pelosi used in her campaign for election in November 2006, and thus it seemed reasonable to me that I, as a constituent, be able to speak to someone on her staff who was on-point for that initiative. The person on the phone was not familiar with the term "Draining the Swamp". I asked to speak to someone who was familiar with the oversight and ethics initiatives and interests of Speaker Pelosi.
In an unfriendly manner, I was asked to hold, which I did. A few minutes went by, and then a second person answered the phone, presumably someone who was a bit more knowledgeable about the subject. I asked this person if I could discuss the status of the "Draining the Swamp" initiatives of Speaker Pelosi.
She replied:
"What? What is Draining the Swamp?"
I replied "Are you familiar with the Speaker's official websites?"
She said "Yes I am."
I said "Okay, let me point it out to you. If you could please go to The Gavel, and in the left side menu column, under Issues, it's the 5th item down.
She said "Yes, I see it."
I asked if I could speak to a staff member who is on-point for that project. She replied "What is it you want to know?" I said "Well if it's okay, I'd like to speak to someone directly on this since you are not familiar with it."
She said "I would have no idea who to connect you with."
I said
"Could you please ask someone on staff who is on point for that issue, and then transfer me to that person's phone or voicemail?"
She resisted again and I pressed "Listen, I understand you don;t know what this issue is, but I think it's reasonable that I be able to speak to someone who IS familiar with it."
She said "I'm happy to help you, I just need to know who that person is." I asked "Well could you put me on hold and please find out?" After several more back and forths she said, somewhat exasperated, "hold on, I'll see if I can get you an answer. What is your specific question?"
I replied 'Well, I';d like to talk to a staff member about the progress of that initiative?"
She: "But if you tell me what about, I can better help you."
I said:
"Okay, one question among several I have is this: Given the Speaker's championing this cause as one of her two primary election themes on why to vote Democratic, I'd like to know what progress has been made, and specifically, I'd like to know if anyone has been fired as a result of this Draining the Swamp project."
She said: "I will pass that along." And I said "No. I am asking to speak to someone about this; and now that I've given you more specifics, I'd like to know the name of the person who can help me with this."
She: "I'm sorry we can't give out names and phone numbers."
Me: "I didn't ask for a phone number. I just asked to get a person's name and be transfered to voice mail so i can describe what I am looking to find out. COuld you do that please?"
She: "I will pass along that question."
I said: "I don;t understand why you have to filter me out from speaking to someone who works on this topic. I am a citizen afterall. I voted to help the Speaker get her job."
She: "I am not filtering you out. I just cannot give you that information."
Me: "okay, fine. You're going to relay the question. Could you read it back please so I know it's what I am asking."
She:
"you;re looking to find out if anyone on the Oversight Committee has lost their job."
Me: "No, not ON the Committee. I'm asking if anyone who has been investigated BY the Oversight and Government reform committee has been fired as a result of those investigations?"
She: "Please hold."
She came back and finally game me the name and connected me to voicemail of someone who was on point, and I then left a vociemail. That person's name, on point for Ethics within the Speaker's Office, is: Mr. Bernie Raimo . It remains to be seen if I get a call back.
Now, the more specific topic of this Diary: I was a bit frustrated, and so I called the Oversight Committee # in DC and asked, similarly, to speak to a Committee staffer who was familiar with the Committee proceedings. Same kind of mumbo jumbo. And I was told to out it in writing if I wanted a response. So, after about 25 minutes on 3 phone calls, I did put it in writing and submitted it on the Oversight Committee's contact page, here:
http://oversight.house.gov/...
Here's what I wrote. I am just relaying all of this here in this diary because it confirms my thesis that our Government is not functioning, even with Democrats controlling the House. If you care to comment, please do. But more than anything, I just wanted to capture a specific example of filtration, and hopefully followup. I didn't edit or review my submitted letter because the data entry form was so small. So hopefully it maintains reasonable continuity.
Attention: Any deputy assistant on the Oversight Committee. I have watched many of the committee proceedings via CSPAN since they began late january, early February.
I am a citizen in the State of California, living in San Francisco. I have specific questions on two topics of Oversight and Government reform for which I would like to get a specific answer on each item, please.
-------------------
ISSUE 1 of 2
-------------------
With respect to the March 26th, 2007 Directive from Chairman Waxman to the Chairs of the RNC and the Bush-Cheney 04 Campaigns, in which 3 specific actions were requested, what is the current status on each of these 3 directives from Chiarman Waxman:
(a) ensuring that all emails on servers controlled by RNC and Bush-Cheney campaign, for domains including GWB43.com, be preserved. I called the DC Office in late April to ask a deputy on this committee if the committee would be seizing these servers to ensure compliance, and if not, what steps would the committee be taking to acquire forensic computer data recovery expertise so as to verify that all emails are in fact preserved by the RNC and that emails that are deleted by the RBNC would be recoverable by computer recovery experts hired by the Oversight Committe.
QUESTION: What is the procedural status of this portion of Mr. Waxman's directive? Specifically: Has the RNC turned over to the Committee each and every email that was sent or received thru the GWB43.com servers or routers? And if not, why not?
(b) The RNC and Bush-Cheney chairs were instructed to provide a document of procedures they would use to ensure compliance with directive #1:
QUESTION: Was this document ever produced by the RNC and delivered to the Oversight Committee? If not, why not? If so, may I obtain a copy via Freedom of Information Act?
(c) The RNC and Bush-Cheney04 Chiars were directed to appear before the Oversight Committee to testify about these matters.
QUESTION: Has the Chiarman of the RNC and the CHiarman of the Bush-Cheney 04 Election Committee testified in public open sessions before the Oversight Committee? If so, what day(s) was that testimony, so that I can watch that replay on CSPAN.org. And if not, why have they not yet testified?
-------------------
ISSUE 2 of 2
-------------------
With respect to the overall charter and mission of the Oversight & Government Reform Committee, and more specifically to the collection of hearings that have taken place since the Democratic Party took control of the House of Representatives in January 2007:
Considering the degree of alleged wrongdoing by multiple employees of the federal government, whose salaries are partially funded by mine and other citizens' taxpayer dollars, for example, Ms. Doan of the GSA, Ms. Taylor of the Department of Justice, and any and all overseeers in charge of the toxic trailers issued to katrina hurricane victims via FEMA, has any federal employee lost his or her job as a result of the hearings conducted by the Committee?
If so, what are the names of the individuals who have lost their jobs due to the Committee's probes.
If not, why not? Is it within the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee to punish offenders and abusers of the public trust to the extent they are investigated for wrongdoing by the Oversight Committee?
---------------
WRITTEN SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO EACH OF THESE QUESTIONS
---------------
To Whom it May Concern within the membership of this Committee: I have called Oversight's office before to attempt to get answers to these questions. On each occasion I was told by Level 1 Phone screeners (i.e., phone receptionists) that these questions could not be answered by phone, that I could not be transferred to a Deputy or staff member to discuss these questions, and that I would need to submit my questions in writing to the Committee.
Having now complied with the protocol described to me by your Committee's phone receptionists, I look forward to receiving thoughtful and specific answers in writing to each of the questions posed above.
Thank you for the Oversight work you and your office have been performing on behalf of the citizens of the United States of America.
Sincerely,