A Law for All Seasons
The law, it is said, is like a causeway. It keeps those subject to the law on a
narrow pathway to or from desired goals. Subjects that stray from the pathway will deal
with the consequences of breaking the law, within the bounds of other laws guaranteeing
a presumption of innocence and due process.
Regulations and administrative policies in support of the law must be clear
enough for subjects to understand so that they may voluntarily stay within legal
boundaries. Similarly, administrators of the law must also keep within not only the laws
they administer but ALL laws governing their activities. Throughout history, regulators
and administrators sometimes depart the narrow causeway and regulate or administer on
the basis of convenience or expediency rather than strict adherence to laws. These
departures are normally the result of a perception by the regulator or administrator that
justice would be better served with circumvention of applicable law - the rights of
regulated and administrated subjects notwithstanding.
An administrator, confronted with a subject it speculates has violated established
legal regulation or policy, may sometimes knock down legal barriers in order to catch the
devil. A regulator, faced with a fiscal dilemma, may conjure justifications to reallocate
funds in defiance of established policy. Done once, it becomes easier to knock down
another and another until all barriers erected for our protection, are gone. Then, who is
the devil? And when the devil decides to come after us what do we do then?
An applicable example occurred with the E-Rate Administrator in funding Year
Six. The first funding commitment wave of Year Six contained denials for applicants
across the country because the Administrator determined that the E-Rate applications
contained 30 percent or more of unsubstantiated charges. These denials, hundreds to
date, began on May 1, 2003 and continue today. Prior to the first denial, applicants were
given no notice of this new policy and applicable FCC regulations did not address the
issue at all. Appeals were filed with the FCC and remain pending in the lengthy backlog
of unresolved appeals at the Commission.
The law, it is said, is like a causeway. It keeps those subject to the law on a
narrow pathway to or from desired goals. Subjects that stray from the pathway will deal
with the consequences of breaking the law, within the bounds of other laws guaranteeing
a presumption of innocence and due process.
Regulations and administrative policies in support of the law must be clear
enough for subjects to understand so that they may voluntarily stay within legal
boundaries. Similarly, administrators of the law must also keep within not only the laws
they administer but ALL laws governing their activities. Throughout history, regulators
and administrators sometimes depart the narrow causeway and regulate or administer on
the basis of convenience or expediency rather than strict adherence to laws. These
departures are normally the result of a perception by the regulator or administrator that
justice would be better served with circumvention of applicable law - the rights of
regulated and administrated subjects notwithstanding.
An administrator, confronted with a subject it speculates has violated established
legal regulation or policy, may sometimes knock down legal barriers in order to catch the
devil. A regulator, faced with a fiscal dilemma, may conjure justifications to reallocate
funds in defiance of established policy. Done once, it becomes easier to knock down
another and another until all barriers erected for our protection, are gone. Then, who is
the devil? And when the devil decides to come after us what do we do then?
An applicable example occurred with the E-Rate Administrator in funding Year
Six. The first funding commitment wave of Year Six contained denials for applicants
across the country because the Administrator determined that the E-Rate applications
contained 30 percent or more of unsubstantiated charges. These denials, hundreds to
date, began on May 1, 2003 and continue today. Prior to the first denial, applicants were
given no notice of this new policy and applicable FCC regulations did not address the
issue at all. Appeals were filed with the FCC and remain pending in the lengthy backlog
of unresolved appeals at the Commission.