“Bureaucracy is the art of making the possible impossible.” ~ Javier Pascal Salcedo
If there is one complaint about government that has been a constant for generations, its government red tape.
Red tape can be loosley defined as excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that can be considered redundant or bureaucratic and hinders or prevents action or decision-making. It is usually applied to governments, corporations, and other large organizations. Another definition is the collection or sequence of forms and procedures required to gain bureaucratic approval for a project, especially when oppressively complex and time-consuming. A third definition is the bureaucratic practice of hair splitting or foot dragging, blamed by its practitioners on the system that forces them to follow prescribed procedures to the letter. Red tape generally includes filling out paperwork, obtaining licenses, having multiple people or committees approve a decision and various low-level rules that make conducting one's affairs slower, more difficult, or both. Red tape can also include filing and certification requirements, reporting, investigation, inspection and enforcement practices, and procedures.
It’s a problem for the public and it’s a problem for elected officials. Today, the real problem, besides the inherent delay in government, is that the only time red tape would serve a useful purpose; the special interest groups have organized a way around it. The result is a lot of good does not get done and a lot of harm is not avoided.
For instance, I personally know that the Mayor of the City of Salisbury, James Ireton, has been organizing an effort to clean up the Wicomico River, which runs through his city. A major part of this effort is to remove some rusting boat wrecks from the river. This is an effort that everyone and anyone can get behind. However, in reality, the red tape and delay have stalled the project multiple times and made it far more difficult and expensive than necessary.*
Meanwhile, a developer in Dorchester County has made a concerted effort to build a resort on land that has been set-aside as a wildlife refuge. While he has yet to be successful, it is action by the public that has blocked him. When it comes to red tape, he has become an expert in cutting, skirting, and avoiding hassles. The difference should be clear: when money and power are at hand the red tape doesn’t serve its purpose. The people are not served by this system.
As always, lets take a look at the history. The origin of the term "red tape" is somewhat obscure, but it is first noted in historical records in the 16th century when Henry VIII repeatedly asked Pope Clement VII for the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He used around eighty or so petitions. Each document was sealed and bound with the obligatory red tape, as was the custom. Around the same time, the Spanish administration of Charles V started to use the red tape in an effort to modernize running his vast empire. The red tape was used to bind the important administrative documents that had to be discussed by the Council of State, and separate them from the issues that were treated in an ordinary administrative way, which were bound by an ordinary rope. Although they were not governing such a vast territory as Charles V, this practice of using red tape to separate the important documents was quickly copied by the other modern European monarchs to speed up their administrative machines. In the 19th century, all American Civil War veterans' records were bound in red tape, and the difficulty in accessing them led to the modern American use of the term, but there is evidence (as detailed above) that the term was in used in its modern sense sometime before this.
While red tape has always been a government problem, it became exacerbated as many things did, in the 1950s and 60s. After WWII, the federal bureaucracy, streamlined (somewhat) by war, had created clear rules, most of which did not require a lawyer to follow. However, with deregulation, complex but clear rules gave way to ‘The Exception’. Bureaucratic bodies abandoned their traditional clear-cut rulings and created loopholes, exceptions, and conflicting case law. As a result, not only was a lawyer helpful to navigate the system, it became necessary. Instead of following a process, one had to and must now dig through decades of case law to find a precedent or argue for the creation of a new one. What this created was what we discussed in the last post: a system where an insider can learn the process and then be paid for that knowledge in the private sector. The result is the system we have now.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 is a federal law enacted in 1980 designed to reduce the total amount of paperwork burden the federal government imposes private businesses and citizens. The Act imposes procedural requirements on agencies that wish to collect information from the public. It also established the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and authorized this new agency to oversee federal agencies' collection of information from the public and to establish information policies. A substantial amendment, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, confirmed that OIRA's authority extended over not only agency orders to provide information to the government, but also agency orders to provide information to the public. Unfortunately, they did little to solve the complex regulatory system.
When a bureaucratic system becomes too complex for a layman, the system is no longer serving the public. With complexity comes an increase in cost and a decrease in speed- neither of which serve the public interest. Further, a complex system is designed for industries that can afford and take the time to find an end around the system, not for the public who needs simple, straightforward answers.. The current system does not serve the people.
Many politicians run on a platform of cutting red tape, but none of them are successful. It is a great ploy to get votes, but in the end, when they can't change the rules, they blame it on the red tape that they sought to eliminate in the first place. The time for excuses is over. This is one way, of many, that we need to stop the status quo in Washington. We need to say, once and for all, that this is unacceptable. If changes aren't made, we'll change the ones ignoring us.
The solution is much clearer and more straightforward than most others, however, it is also a longer-term solution. The Executive and Legislative Branches with the advice of the Judicial should form a Commission to begin a two-year study by an independent group of legislators, judicial, and executive officials. This commission will analyze the entire United States Code, all Federal regulations, all Federal Rules, all agency decisions, and all other aspects of the federal bureaucracy. This will be done in an effort to remove, simplify, clarify, and, in all non-substantive, ways re-write the Federal Code and federal bureaucratic system documents. The hope is, after this study, the system can be standardized among agencies and return the system to one that can be comprehended and handled by a layman.
This is not a new idea. Many states have undertaken this very process to modernize their laws and codes. This will be applying that strategy to the federal government. The result will be a system that will reject money as power. A corporation or wealthy individual should not be able to buy their way around the roadblocks that others face. This will be the final part of getting the money out of politics that will be started with campaign finance reform.
© Robert Cheek, 2011, 2013
* Mayor Ireton has since had success in his efforts to begin cleaning up the Wicomico River and has won re-election as mayor of Salisbury.
