CMOR Testifies to Congress on Electronic Surveillance Bill - Articles



CMOR Testifies to Congress on Electronic Surveillance Bill

Diane Bowers, President of CMOR, submitted the following testimony on June 22, 1993 at a Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee hearing on the Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act (S. 984):

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Diane K. Bowers.

I am president of the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research (CMOR). We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement addressing S. 984, the "Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act."

CMOR is a coalition of research associations, survey and polling organizations, and manufacturers representing all segments of the research industry from research providers to research buyers. CMOR was established in the fall of 1992 to speak on behalf of the entire marketing and opinion research industry on issues of respondent cooperation and government affairs.

Mr. Chairman, we applaud you for addressing workplace privacy issues. You and Representative Williams have identified problems that clearly warrant attention. As drafted, however, S. 984 would undermine the ability of government, university and private researchers to ensure the accuracy and quality of survey research data. We strongly oppose the bill in its current form.

Public opinion polling and other survey research relies heavily on telephone interviews. Supervisory monitoring of telephone interviews enables the companies conducting the research to ensure the accuracy and quality of their data. This function cannot be served if supervisory monitoring must be limited to a few hours a week, if interviewers must be told when their calls will be monitored, and if respondents must be told that the interviews are being monitored.

This is precisely what S. 984, in its current form, would do.

Section 5 would prohibit a research organization from monitoring interviewers (other than the newest employees) through "telephone service observation" or other electronic monitoring for more than 2 hours per week, and long-time employees could not be monitored at all.

Section 4 would require that interviewers be given advance notice of the hours and days that any monitoring would occur. Sec. 4(b). It also would require that respondents be informed that the call is being monitored. Sec. 4(e). Additionally, anyone conducting telephone research for a Federal agency would have to offer respondents the opportunity not to participate in view of the fact that the call might be monitored. Sec. 4(f).

Dr. J. Ann Selzer, the former Director of the Iowa Poll, has stated that these requirements would make it impossible for researchers to maintain the "stringent quality control" that is indispensable to "first-rate survey research." Frank Brown, the president of MarketSearch Corporation in Columbia, SC, spoke for survey research organizations around the country when he stated that S. 984 "would seriously jeopardize telephone survey research." The reasons are obvious:

If survey research organizations are unable to monitor interviewers whenever they are conducting research, they cannot ensure that questions are being asked properly and that answers are being properly recorded, or evaluate the study as a whole, including the general tone of the responses to the questionnaire.

If interviewers must be told when monitoring is being conducted, they inevitably will be more cautious and conscientious at those times than at others, thus defeating the control function of the monitoring. We are aware of no comparable requirement that employees in other contexts be given such specific notice that they are being observed.

If respondents are told that the calls are being monitored, this information -- which is wholly gratuitous and amounts to "static" -- is bound to make at least some respondents less willing to participate and thereby compromise the quality of the population sample.

The additional requirement that Federal agencies affirmatively invite respondents to "opt out" of a survey would cripple the ability of the Labor Department, the Commerce Department, the Federal Trade Commission and other agencies to collect important research.

Eminent academic researchers also have expressed their strong opposition to S. 984. Dr. Stanley Presser of the University of Maryland, who is the President of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, has stated that S. 984 would "impair the ability of both public and private decisionmakers to obtain high-quality information" about public attitudes and opinions "on a wide range of subjects.

Dr. Norman N. Bradburn, the director of research for the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, and Dr. John M. Kennedy, director of the Center for Survey Research at the University of Indiana, have expressed similar concerns. Dr. Bradburn has warned that S. 984 threatens many government surveys and "would do great harm to the fundamental statistics upon which the Congress and the Administration rely for policy information."

Four leading public opinion researchers -- Field Research Corporation, The Gallup Organization, Louis Harris & Associates, Inc., and The Roper Organization -- have sent each Member of this subcommittee a joint communication stating their strong opposition to the bill as drafted. (See Attachment A). Indeed, letters opposing the bill have been sent to individual members of the subcommittee by a wide variety of public opinion polling and survey research organizations and professionals, including some identified above. (See Attachment B).

Mr. Chairman, survey research organizations and other employers should provide their employees with general notice that they may be subject to electronic monitoring, and they should describe the purposes for which the monitoring may be conducted. But it is unreasonable to address the privacy concerns that underlie S. 984 in a manner that would severely impair government and private survey research, which the bill as currently drafted would do.

Thank you.


June 21, 1993

To the members of the Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity:

As leading public opinion researchers in the United States, we strongly oppose S. 984, the "Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act," scheduled to be heard by the subcommittee on June 22. As drafted, S. 984 would impose restrictions on supervisory monitoring of telephone interviews that would cripple our ability to ensure the accuracy and quality of polling and other survey data relied upon by government and private decisionmakers alike. S. 984 should be rejected unless these unnecessary and unwarranted restrictions are eliminated.

Field Research Corporation, Mervin D. Field, chairman The Gallup Organization,

James K. Clifton, President Louis Harris & Associates, Inc., Humphrey Taylor,

President, COO The Roper Organization, Harry W. O'Neill, Vice Chairman



Dr. Norman M. Bradburn, Director of Research, National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago


Veme B. Churchill, Chairman and CEO, MARKET FACTS

Wesley R. Peters, President, DIMENSION RESEARCH, INC.


Dr. John M. Kennedy, Director of the Center for Survey Research at the University of Indiana


Dr. J. Ann Selzer, SELZER BODDY, INC., formerly Director of the Iowa Poll


Dr. Stanley Presser, Director of the University of Maryland Survey Research Center and the Joint University of Maryland/University of Michigan Program in Survey

Methodology, and President of the American Association for Public Opinion Research

Joseph A. Hunt, President, WESTAT

New Hampshire

Michael Kenyon, President, PROJECTIONS INC.


John Berrigan, President, National Analysts, Inc.

Paul A. Frattaroll, President, JRP Marketing Research Services, Inc.

BJ. McKenzie, President, Market Dimensions Inc.

Fred B. Soulas, President, ICR Survey Research Group

South Carolina

Frank K. Brown, President, MarketSearch Corporation


Ron Lindorf, President, Western Wats Center

About the Author

Howard Fienberg

Howard Fienberg

Based in Washington, DC, Howard is the Insights Association's lobbyist for the marketing research and data analytics industry, focusing primarily on consumer privacy and data security, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), tort reform, and the funding and integrity of the decennial Census and the American Community Survey (ACS). Howard has more than two decades of public policy experience. Before the Insights Association, he worked in Congress as senior legislative staffer for then-Representatives Christopher Cox (CA-48) and Cliff Stearns (FL-06). He also served more than four years with a science policy think tank, working to improve the understanding of scientific and social research and methodology among journalists and policymakers. Howard is also co-director of The Census Project, a 900+ member coalition in support of a fair and accurate Census and ACS. He has also served previously on the Board of Directors for the National Institute for Lobbying and Ethics and and the Association of Government Relations Professionals. Howard has an MA International Relations from the University of Essex in England and a BA Honors Political Studies from Trent University in Canada, and has obtained the Certified Association Executive (CAE), Professional Lobbying Certificate (PLC) and the Public Policy Certificate (PPC). When not running advocacy for the Insights Association, Howard enjoys hockey, NFL football, sci-fi and horror movies, playing with his dog, and spending time with family and friends.


Fighting for You: January 2024 Legislative and Regulatory Update

Fighting for You: January 2024 Legislative and Regulatory Update

Kicking off another year of advocacy for the insights industry, the Insights Association focused in ...

Read More >
New York A. 8179 Would Tax Firms for Replacing Jobs with AI, Algorithms or Apps

New York A. 8179 Would Tax Firms for Replacing Jobs with AI, Algorithms or Apps

The Robot Tax Act (A. 8179) would impose a tax surcharge on “using technology to displace workers.”...

Read More >
New York NonCompete Ban S. 3100 Vetoed

New York NonCompete Ban S. 3100 Vetoed

The governor vetoed New York S. 3100 on December 22, 2023, legislation that would have banned most n...

Read More >
California 2023 Legislative Update: Wins, Losses and New Laws

California 2023 Legislative Update: Wins, Losses and New Laws

The insights industry had wins and losses in 2023 in California, as legislators have tried to tackle...

Read More >
Fighting for You: October 2023 Legislative and Regulatory Update

Fighting for You: October 2023 Legislative and Regulatory Update

As Halloween rapidly approaches, the Insights Association is searching for treats in legislation and...

Read More >
New California Laws Ban Non-Compete Agreements - A.B. 1076 and S.B. 699

New California Laws Ban Non-Compete Agreements - A.B. 1076 and S.B. 699

A pair of new California laws, A.B. 1076 and S.B. 699, ban non-compete agreements in employment cont...

Read More >
Members only Article - Please login to view