General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Question: Can the President fire the head of the FCC
as he wishes? Forget the politics of it; is it within his powers? I really want to know if the FCC goes against his very clear desires to keep net neutrality, does he have the power to do anything about it? If he can fire the head of the FCC, despite the fact that he hired him, I'd like to know if it were on open opportunity or not. Thank you!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)Barack Obama made an important promise when he first ran for president. “The Internet is perhaps the most important network in history, and we have to keep it that way,” he said in 2007. As a senator, he had similarly called for a “neutral platform” uncontrolled by “some corporate media middleman” like Verizon or Comcast. Obama, in other words, was committed to preserving network neutrality—the notion that Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have to provide fair and neutral access to all websites and applications; they can’t make small websites slow to load and give “fast lanes” to monopolies and large companies who pay extra for special treatment.
Unemployment insurance graveyardBut last Thursday, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Wheeler, proposed a network neutrality rule that would authorize those pay-to-play fast lanes. The FCC approved the proposal but will take public comment over the next four months before a final ruling. The problem with Wheeler’s plan, though, is that discrimination begets discrimination: Without net neutrality, bigger companies will get more traffic and more power, and will in turn have more money to pay for even more access. Eventually, they can control what we see and read. It’s the opposite of the American commitment to decentralized democratic and economic power.
The Obama White House responded to the FCC’s proposal with a distancing statement, noting that the FCC is “an independent agency” and adding, “We will be watching closely as the process moves forward in hopes that the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality.” While the statement overall was a clear snub of Wheeler’s efforts, the term “independent agency” is merely code for saying Obama’s hands are tied. After all, he can’t legally fire any of the FCC commissioners, including the chairman, during their fixed five-year terms in the same way that he can fire, at will, the heads of non-independent agencies and departments such as the CIA, State Department or Defense Department.
But the president (and everyone else) seems to be overlooking one power he does have: the authority to remove Wheeler from the chairmanship, promoting another commissioner to that spot and leaving Wheeler as one of the other four commissioners. In particular, both Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, the two other Democrats on the five-person board, spoke out eloquently in official statements on Thursday, criticizing Wheeler’s proposal for authorizing fast lanes and being a “network neutrality” rule in name only. Either Clyburn or Rosenworcel could take over the agency, scrap Wheeler’s plan in favor of an alternative and move quickly to ensure an open Internet, thereby fulfilling the cornerstone of the Obama campaign’s tech agenda after the four-month comment period.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/obama-should-fire-his-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-106846.html#ixzz3ImADps4O
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The President can appoint and have confirmed (by Congress) commissioners of independent agencies, but he cannot fire them during their terms (five years in the case of the FCC). They do not "serve at the pleasure of the President" in that sense. He can shuffle the commissioners around such that Wheeler is no longer the head of the FCC, however, as I understand it.
The FCC can only have three commissioners of a single party.
2banon
(7,321 posts)That's the point of the appointment.
onenote
(42,703 posts)Serving at the "pleasure of the President" (as is the case with executive branch officials) means you can be removed without cause. Independent agency officials can only be removed by the President for cause (e.g., malfeasance). Which is why it never happens.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)but cannot fire at his pleasure. After appointment, they are independent of his pleasure. That's the point.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The appointment means that his decisions are Obama's wishes, etc.
I understand "at the pleasure of" to mean, in essence, that that pleasure can change. A cabinet officer can be fired tomorrow, no questions asked. A cabinet officer therefore serves at the pleasure of the President. A commissioner of the FCC cannot - in practice or theory - be fired tomorrow by the President, no questions asked. So, an FCC commissioner does not "serve at the pleasure of the President."
This is the ordinary meaning of the term "to serve at the pleasure of."
I understand that you have some other agenda. If I understand that correctly, it is the following: because Obama appointed Tom Wheeler - who is presumably against net neutrality - to the position of Head of the FCC, we should read that as Obama's actual desire on net neutrality, rather than his (fake, lying, fraudulent, whatever) statement on net neutrality made this week, which is fake, lying, fraudulent because he already appointed Tom Wheeler, who is against it, etc. That's a fine position to hold. Fair enough.
But that's not what "serves at the pleasure of" means, in practice or otherwise. The fact of the matter is that the President cannot fire Tom Wheeler without providing explicit cause. That makes his position different from cabinet officers, etc.
We don't need to twist the basic meaning of terms to make our points.
2banon
(7,321 posts)is Net Neutrality.
I'm not banking on Obama's position or any notion that he might then "fire" or dismiss or demand Wheeler's resignation to back up his own newly stated position.
Obama's just a figure head, a place holder for the 1%. I'm not interested in his public statements on the matter. I'm interested in citizen activism pushing forward on this.
I'm not interested "making points" but scoring victory in the face of the well funded industry opposition, vis a vis cronies on the commission, in congress and the corporate media they own.
I'm not optimistic but I remain hopeful.
onenote
(42,703 posts)The FCC is an "independent" agency, not an executive branch agency. Since 1935, it has been understood that independent branch officials appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate may only be removed for "cause" (such as malfeasance). By its very nature, the independence of an independent agency would be nullified if the President could remove members for simply taking actions with which the President disagrees.
Whether the President could designate a different member of the Commission as Chairman has never been tested. It is the President's prerogative to name the Chairman -- in other words, a separate confirmation by the Senate is not needed to designate a Commissioner as the Chairman.
As a practical matter, however, it isn't going to happen. One reason, noted above, is that it would undermine the very notion of an independent agency's independence. Secondly, action by the FCC requires 3 votes. What is the President supposed to do? If he can't remove the Chairman (but can change who serves as Chairman), it won't necessarily change the outcome. More importantly, Congressional repubs are opposed to net neutrality regulation and if the Chairman was removed, Obama wouldn't be able to get a nominee that didn't pledge not to support net neutrality confirmed; most likely the Senate wouldn't even act on a new nomination, choosing to leave the fifth seat vacant, resulting in a 2-2 deadlock that would prevent the FCC from adopting new rules.
The suggestion by "Zephyr Teachout" that either Clyburn or Rosenworcel could take over the agency, scrap Wheeler’s plan in favor of an alternative and move quickly to ensure an open Internet, thereby fulfilling the cornerstone of the Obama campaign’s tech agenda after the four-month comment period ignores one fairly important fact. It doesn't matter whether Clyburn or Rosenworcel are chairman. They still can't act without three votes and if Wheeler really is opposed to taking the action promoted by the President, his voting against the proposal, or simply abstaining, would prevent it from being adopted.
2banon
(7,321 posts)a presidential appointment embodies a representation of the views, policies and agenda of the president in office. That's the reality in practice and is it plays out.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)because he's the one who appointed Wheeler.
2banon
(7,321 posts)as it were.
The day after the election in 2008, we all witnessed Obama's initial cabinet appointments were all Foxes placed to guard the hen houses. Every single appointment. Wheeler is no exception.
Our struggle to reclaim the commons, reclaim our civil rights, reclaim our democracy vis a vis campaign reform and the entire elections process and so on and so forth, should be the agenda going forward.
Net Neutrality is vital in the struggle in achieving these goals, imo.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Just kinda ticked at the people gushing over Obama's support for net neutrality, now that he can't actually do anything about it.
onenote
(42,703 posts)But the premise here is that a majority of the FCC does not go as far as Obama has suggested and adopts a weaker set of rules. That could happen. Indeed it has happened before. As recently has the bush administration, Chairman Kevin Martin went "rogue" a few times and ended up being blocked by other repub commissioners from doing things that pretty clearly the bush administration didn't want. But there was never any talk of Bush trying to remove Martin.
2banon
(7,321 posts)The issues at the time were centered control/ownership of the airwaves, calamitous results from deregulation and the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine etc. Digitization etc.. Public hearings - town hall meetings had to be held all over the country to packed halls auditoriums. Martin and the other Republican reps were facing an enormous amount of push back. Copp would attend Freepress conferences and THAT was extremely helpful to keep us appraised on status of proposed rules and regs changes, and so forth.
Vigilant Activism doesn't win every battle, but it does tend to reign in extreme machinations.
In so far as Wheeler/Obama thingy, Obama knew who he was appointing. Wheeler gives Obama cover to pay lip service to media/net neutrality activists while not really caring about the outcome, else he wouldn't have appointed him in the first place. At least that's how I see it. 
randome
(34,845 posts)He tries to refrain from pushing politics onto other agencies, even when it conflicts with his goals. It's a noble way to look at the government in its entirety but most politicians will probably not learn anything from it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
Scuba
(53,475 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Presumably he can designate a different commissioner to be 'chairman'.
onenote
(42,703 posts)
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Removing him as chairman isn't going to make him vote a different way.