Congressional Hearing Questions FirstNet Appointments, State Input

FirstNet's chairman of the board, Sam Ginn, was among five panelists to testify before the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, at the Oversight of FirstNet and Public Safety Communications hearing. 

Subcommittee chairman Greg Walden and his fellow committee members questioned the FirstNet panel, followed by a four person panel on NG-911 issues, which included FCC PSHSB Chief David Turestsky.  The first session of this hearing raised some of the issues that Public Safety has been having with FirstNet, as well as a few new ones.

Where are the state representatives?
Among the issues discussed was the lack of representation of state interests on the board.  Although Rep. Walden was questioning Ginn, the office responsible for official appointments to the FirstNet Board is that of the acting Secretary of Commerce, Rebecca Blank. 

The first requirement of board appointees in Public Law 112-96, which created FirstNet, calls for "not fewer than 3 [three] individuals to represent the collective interests of the States, localities, tribes, and territories."  It goes on to require not fewer than 1 individual with expertise in each category of Public Safety emergency response, technical fluency, network expertise, and financial expertise. 

Currently, the board includes only two former officials from state government and city government, Teri Takai and Wellington Webb, both of whom are no longer serving in their respective roles. Rep. Walden called this into question, although Chairman Ginn responded that the individual serving state interests (Teri Takai) is very qualified and understands what the states' needs are.  Rep. Walden and other committee members agreed that this does not accurately fulfill the requirements of the law.

The hearing went on to include discussions of the timeline regarding FirstNet's consultation with state, local, tribal, and rural agencies in order to establish the network.  It became clear throughout that although the consultation is planned to take place, the network architecture, planning, and organiational institutions will be in place prior to this essential step. 

"It doesn't matter if states opt in or opt out..."
Rep. Doris Mastui of California asked Ginn whether he would commit to answering state questions and concerns before they have to decide whether to opt in or opt out of federal buildout of the national network. Ginn missed the mark with his answer, simply stating "it doesn't matter whether the states opt in or opt out," so long as their technical parameters are compatible with the NPSBN's basic architecture and standards. 

This answer appeased Rep. Matsui, however did not answer this vital question of whether the states will have enough information to make an informed decision about opting in or opting out.  Rear ADmiral James Barnett, Jr., Esq., has colorfully described the opt out process for states as being "as difficult as taking the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West."  Anyone who looks at the short 270 day window for the decision and the state RFP process completion will agree.

Biggest concern according to Ginn: contracting process.
In a rather assertive exchange with Chairman Ginn, committee members demanded a straightforward answer to the question of FirstNet's three biggest obstacles.  Ginn attempted to sideline the issue by stating that recommendations have been submitted, however he gave a general answer that the slow, bureaucratic procurement process can cost time and money.

Although Walden requested specific recommendations, Ginn stated they are being developed, and some have been submitted to Congressional staffers already, and that he would like to "sit down and discuss" these, presumably in private.  "This is your opportunity to make those measures known to us and to the public," said Walden.

For further analysis on this hearing, read one of the Urgent Communications articles on the topic.