U.S.Transparency

My Response: White House asks for OpenGov "Best Practices & Metrics"

2012-01-06T02:31:00.000-05:00

Here's my letter (below) in response to last month's White House request for input on "best practices and metrics" for Public Participation as it relates to its Open Government initiative, esp. as an element of the recent "U.S. National Action Plan".

Basically, in the letter I say that (1) after 3 years of "OpenGov" effort, their standard approach to "public consultation" is much less open than all other federal agencies have been doing for decades prior, and (2) if they are sincere about seeking out the wisdom of experts on this topic, then they are welcome to consult with knowledgeable people at the online forum (an email-list that I moderate) called "OpenGovMetrics".

If they do, then that may be a first because, except for interviews with me on OpenGov Radio, the only time over the past 3 years that I've seen the White House's "OpenGov" team participating in anything like an online discussion is when I watch streaming video of one of them speaking to an audience at a conference or other staged meeting.

Feel free to leave a comment (below the letter) and/or join the email-group for a deeper discussion on the development of standard metrics for measuring progress in "Open Government", i.e., Transparency, Participation, and Collaboration.

You don't have to use the website to join the email-group. Just send an empty message to: opengovmetrics+subscribe@googlegroups.com

best,
Stephen Buckley

P.S. Another option is to follow the tweets at @OpenGovMetrics.

(letter begins)
===========================================

Via Email: opengov@ostp.gov
January 3, 2012

Mr. Aneesh Chopra
United States Chief Technology Officer
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
725 17th Street, N.W.
Room 5228
Washington, DC 20502

Dear Mr. Chopra,

This letter is in response to your request on the White House Blog for recommendations for promoting public participation in government, as a part of implementing the U.S. Open Government National Action Plan. You stated:

"Given the focus of this initiative, we thought it would be most appropriate to invite you to provide input and ideas on best practices and metrics for public participation .."

It is heartening for me to see, almost 3 years after the President signed his "Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government" (1/21/09), that you and others at the White House are more fully understanding what people like me have been trying to tell you since the beginning of the OpenGov Dialogue when you arrived in 2009.

That is, in order to assess the progress of its Open Government efforts (i.e., for more "Transparency, Participation, and Collaboration"), the White House needs to decide on how to measure those three elements. I agree with the AmericaSpeaks report when it says the "Open Government Initiative and most federal agency plans have failed to offer standards for what constitutes high-quality public participation."

The concept of establishing a starting point (baseline) is not hard to grasp. Everyone who's ever been on a diet to lose weight knows that you're supposed to weigh yourself .. in the beginning. The numbers on the weight-scale are in pounds or kilograms (or whatever) that were developed as standard units of measurement. Step on the scale next week so you can see if you're making progress. Some people, of course, don't want to know the truth.

But compared to weight-loss, the "OpenGov" changes in government culture are incredibly slow and subtle, so you shouldn't be relying on friends to tell you when you're "looking good" (which tends to happen anyway when you work at the White House). You need to discern and gather objective proof because, eventually, people (like your Chief Performance Officer) will say "Show me the data."

So how do we go forward from here? How do we, as citizens interested in Open Government, participate in collaborating with you (and others at the White House) in order to come up with some good indicators of "public participation"? Although your blog-post mentions last summer's "extensive consultations with external stakeholders", the truth is that only a couple dozen guests were invited by the White House to a few closed-door meetings for input to the U.S. OpenGov National Action Plan. (Yes, the other 99.9999% of the public was later invited to provide input, but then you never asked for feedback on the draft Plan.)

Simply put, the White House's OpenGov team (OSTP and OMB) needs to "improve its game" when it comes to public participation, e.g., public consultation in the OpenGov National Action Plan (see http://www.opengovpartnership.org/consultation ).

Consider these various levels of government/public consultation (from lowest to highest):

1. No request for public Input prior to Decision.

2. Request for public Input prior to Decision.

3. Same as #2, and also the proposed Decision is offered for public Feedback.

4. Same as #3, and also a summary of how public Feedback influenced final Decision.

5. Same as #4, and additional chances for public collaboration prior to final Decision.

For several decades, federal agencies have consulted with the public (as evidenced in the Federal Register) according to the #4 level. Of course, the President wants to do better than the status-quo, so you are looking for "best practices" (i.e., more of the back-and-forth collaboration between the public and the government).

However, judging from your office's consistent failure to offer up any of its OpenGov draft documents for public feedback, it does appear that, as you said above, it is "most appropriate" for your office to only ask for public input prior to a final decision. That would put you at the #2 level. And if we compared these levels to an "A to F" marking scale, then that means that your "#2 level" of collaboration (over the past three years) equates to a "D" grade, which is two full levels of collaboration below what federal agencies have been practicing (a "B" grade) for decades!

And, even though D.C. is the capital city of Expediency, you will save time in the long-run if your office slows down to learn to the intermediate steps before you can start operating at (and lecturing others about) the top-level "best practices". Appropriately, this will take a some back-and-forth collaborative participation by your office in an open forum consistent with the President's direction for you to "solicit public feedback to assess and improve [your] level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation."

As you may know, an email-group (a.k.a. email-listserv) continues to be an easy and effective tool for group discussion since long before the Web existed. Therefore, I have set up such a group to discuss "OpenGov" metrics. I invite you, and any other interested people reading this, to join us in a moderated discussion about how we can develop better, objective ways to measure improvements in Public Participation. I know many experts on that topic, who are not invited to your D.C. meetings, would be glad to share their knowledge there with you and/or your staff.

I hope is that joining the group's discussions will help make for a better U.S. report (i.e., blessed by the organizations below) at the "OpenGov" conference in Brazil this April. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or suggestions.

sincerely,
Stephen Buckley

former moderator,
Open Government Directive google-group
moderator,
Open Government Metrics google-group
member,
National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation
member,
International Assn. for Public Participation - USA affiliate

================================
(letter ends)

My Letter: Suggestions for U.S. "Action Plan" under the Open Government Partnership

2011-09-16T06:43:00.001-04:00

Via Email: opengov@ostp.gov
September 16, 2011

Cass R. Sunstein, Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503

Aneesh Chopra
United States Chief Technology Officer
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
725 17th Street
Room 5228
Washington, DC 20502

Dear Mr. Sunstein and Mr. Chopra:

It is my understanding that President Obama will be making a speech at the United Nations on Sept. 20th about new commitments by the U.S. in the area of "open government". I also understand that you are working on the national "Action Plan", to be released that same day, which will lay out the strategy and methods for fulfilling the President's commitments under the new "Open Government Partnership" (OGP).

The purpose of this letter is to respond to your public request, a few weeks ago, for suggestions in preparing that Action Plan. I realize my suggestions are presented less than a week before Sept. 20th, but I am assuming that your initial version of the Action Plan will be continually improved in light of better ideas and practices. Therefore, please consider the following four suggestions for any future "OpenGov" directions and guidance.

I like you to note that, while the first suggested action is about behavior (of an editorial nature), the other three are concrete actions can be adopted as "specific commitments" of the type that President promised at the U.N. a year ago. And while there are no "silver bullets" for achieving changes in the status-quo, I believe that these actions, more than any other three, will provide the greatest stretch beyond our current "OpenGov" endeavors.

1. Editorial suggestion: Be More Clear about your "Principles of Open Government"

In January 2009, on his first full day in office, President Obama laid out his three principles of Open Government, i.e., Transparency, Participation, and Collaboration. However, after two and a half years, it now looks like that set of principles is going to change.

If we follow the "road-map" of the Open Government Partnership and adopt their "four core open government principles", then "Collaboration" will be removed, and replaced by "Accountability" and "Technology & Innovation". (Shouldn't that last one count as two? But, then, is "Technology" a principle?)

If that is correct, then it looks like a significant shift in your OpenGov philosophy will need an official explanation. Otherwise, many people (especially government employees) will be confused when your existing Open Government Directive, along with the various OpenGov Plans of federal agencies, is changed to show that the set of basic principles of Open Government principles can be unilaterally changed every few years.

(Okay, now I can see why "Collaboration" would be de-emphasized.)

2. Transparency Commitment: Give People Better Choices about Public Involvement

Thanks to modern technology, we can receive a stream of electronic notices about all sorts of events that interest us. But, to avoid being overwhelmed by too many notices, we each try to create a stream that contains only those notices of personal importance to us.

Every year, about 50,000 public notices are issued by federal agencies in which they ask the American public for their opinion about a specific action being proposed. That works out to about 1,000 notices per week which, I'm sure, virtually no one would want to receive in their email in-box. (FYI: Only 10% appear in Federal Register.)

Fortunately, technology does allow us to receive only those notices that match our personal interests. We can be informed about only those jobs that match our talents, and only those people who match our social or professional interests. Unfortunately, this technology has not been used to inform us about those government proposals that we really would like to know more about ... so that we can participate before a decision is made.

Concrete Action: In order for any citizen to receive a customized stream of public notices, their government should require that every official notice to the public be made available in a standard format that allows that notice to be electronically located according to pre-selected criteria.

3. Collaboration Commitment: Make It Safe for Government Workers to Suggest Changes

As a former federal employee who worked at five different agencies, I know from experience that the only way to make it safe for government workers to propose ideas about saving money (or to simply point out waste) is to have an online system that allows them to express an idea BUT hides their true identity. (The existing Inspector-General system does NOT do this.)

Public Engagement and Accountability are improved when government employees work in an organizational culture of openness in which they feel safe in expressing their thoughts and professional opinions with both their co-workers and members of the public ... without fear of repercussions.

Concrete Action: Every government employee should be given access to an electronic system -- like those already required by federal law for large corporations -- which allows that employee to raise a concern or suggestion to other employees about the operation of their agency without fear of his/her identity becoming known.

4. Accountability Commitment: Give Citizens a Simple Checklist for Rating "Public Engagement"

In President Obama's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, he says (3 times) that federal agencies "should solicit" public input and feedback about improving their OpenGov practices.

However, your offices (OMB and OSTP) did not ask the public for feedback about your "Open Government Dialogue" in May/June 2009. In fact, from all the online experiments in public engagement by the current White House over the past two years, precious little has been learned because there has been no organized survey from those who participated. The only forethought has been, at best, to give out an email-address to receive anecdotal comments. Consequently, there is relatively little data to show any difference in Transparency, Participation, or Collaboration since your offices' efforts began January 2009.

Concrete Action: Every citizen should be offered a simple, standard checklist in order to provide feedback about the quality of any public meeting or online event that they attend. Those results would create an objective survey as to the public's judgement with respect to that event's Transparency, Participation, and Collaboration. A compilation of those surveys would, then, reflect an entire agency's or government's progress (or lack thereof).

I hope that this letter has given you something of interest to consider. I'd be interested in any feedback that you may wish to share, written or verbal. Anyone reading this letter may also comment on it (anonymously, if they wish) at my blog at http://www.UStransparency.com as posted on September 16, 2011.

sincerely,

Stephen Buckley
sbuckley at UStransparency.com
http://twitter.com/transpartisan
24/7 voice: (508) 348-9090
skype: opengov

P.S. Two years ago, at your request, hundreds of citizens earnestly suggested their ideas to you in the "Open Government Dialogue" to help you develop the Open Government Directive. Five months later, you issued the OpenGov Directive with virtually no explanation of your consideration about many of the serious ideas. So it really should come as no surprise to you when the public's disappointing response to your new request reflects their discouragement from before. Maybe you should go back over those previous ideas with "fresh eyes" to see if any of them have gotten better with age. http://tinyurl.com/p4yueq

===================
ShortURL for this post:
http://bit.ly/mRyPUh
.

OpenGov at Two Years: Ignorance is Bliss?

2011-01-24T01:45:00.002-05:00

It's been two full years since President Obama signed his Open Government Memorandum for federal agencies to be more "Transparent, Participatory, and Collaborative."

At the halfway point in the President's term, this is the obvious time for the most serious assessment as to what progress is being made with the Open Government Initiative.

Two years is plenty of time to experiment and, as a result, learn what parts of your past actions are working ... and what parts are not working as you had hoped.

Having spent 25 years in D.C., I know that this latter part (i.e., public admission of any sort of unsuccessfulness) is a very difficult thing for almost all government people to do ... especially when you work at the highest levels of the federal government in Washington.

It's the part of "how Washington works" that, ironically, is supposed to be changed by the Open Government initiative. Citizens know certain things that Government does not. Therefore, Government should more inviting of Citizens to share that knowledge, so that Government can make better decisions. But yet, we complain when Government admits cluelessness.

And that's the dilemma.

Government officials are paid to be "smarter" than unpaid citizens. How would it look, for example, if the Secretary of Education admitted not knowing something that was obvious to an ordinary teacher or parent. And what if that was happening over and over? For whatever reason, there is a general expectation that the people in Washington are there because they are (supposed to be) smarter than the rest of us "ordinary citizens".

Therefore, for government officials, there is a dangerously gray area between (A) being more open-minded by considering information and ideas from "ordinary citizens", and then (B) admitting that, hey, a lot of their own information and ideas are not as good as those of "ordinary citizens".

As such, we should not be surprised to see government officials, after testing what they think are the best ideas, consistently declining to discuss and, therefore, learn from those aspects that did not work as they had hoped. This is particularly ironic for OpenGov experiments because the whole idea is to open-mindedly search (with no guarantee of success at every step) for better ways to collaborate with those outside of government.

Here's what the President's Memorandum said about that:

Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperate among themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.

So, after of various collaborative exercises over the past two years, has the OpenGov leadership (i.e., in OSTP and OMB) been "walking the talk" of soliciting feedback on its experiments in citizen collaboration? Let's see.

After the White House's "Open Government Dialogue" (May-June 2009), were participants asked for their feedback on what worked and what didn't?

Nope.

In early 2010, federal agencies (including the White House's OMB and OSTP) hosted online forums for citizen collaboration on development of agencies' Open Government Plans. Did they follow-up by asking citizen participants for feedback on what worked and what didn't?

Nope.

Now, the same officials who asked -- twice before -- for citizens' ideas and collaboration on Open Government have come back once again with ExpertNet (December 2010-January 2011). Will they now comply with the President's Memorandum about soliciting feedback on collaboration?

Based on their track record, and the absence of any mention about soliciting any feedback about the ExpertNet platform, it appears the answers will, once again, be "Nope."

And, in addition to consistent neglect in asking for citizen feedback, here's another example of OpenGov leadership failing to "walk their talk": they rarely participate in their own collaboration events!

In the ExpertNet section on "Basic Principles", this is THEIR language (scroll down to Item #12 here):

Government officials must actively participate in each consultation for the public to trust in the relevance of the process. Citizen participation demands government participation. To demonstrate that public feedback is vital for sustaining public engagement and interests, government officials must collaborate and the system should define their role clearly.

So when a participant, Tim Bonnemann, asked questions about some unclear aspects of ExpertNet, the White House's "OpenGov"people in charge of the site not answer him there. Instead of responding to Mr. Bonnemann in ExpertNet's discussion area, they posted a partial and indirect "response" in a totally different location (i.e., on the White House blog)!

I won't go into it in this posting, but there are plenty of other examples of how the White House's OpenGov initiative, despite cool new tech-tools, is operating in many significant ways as LESS "transparent, participatory, and collaborative" than the federal agencies that they are trying to change.

It's been two years of "self-evaluation" for OpenGov, so it's way past time to start following the President's original task to ask the public to evaluate his administration's OpenGov efforts.

I compare it to the people who convince themselves that their new diet is really working but, yet, they don't want to step on the weight-scale to learn the objective truth. They'd rather just "self-evaluate" themselves by looking in the mirror.

After two years, OpenGov should be modelling the opposite of "Ignorance is bliss."
.
=====================
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/ghByVa

OpenGovRadio 10/30/10: #Rally4Sanity Aftermath -> What Do YOU Think?

2010-10-29T01:03:00.001-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this Saturday's OpenGovRadio show (October 30, 2010 4pm ET):

#Rally4Sanity Aftermath -> What Do YOU Think?

NOTE: This is just a placeholder blog-post. I will be providing additional links, etc. before showtime on Saturday at 4:00 pm. I am doing this so that my subscribers will know that there is a show at that time .. one hour after the Rally to Restore Sanity is scheduled to end on the National Mall.

In the meantime, take a look at this national news-wire article. It shows the connection between Saturday's rally and how increase the public's engagement in the direction of their government (in addition to simply voting every couple years):

excerpt --

"This event, while originally intended for jest, could possibly become a 'turning point' ... in our nation's history for having immense impact on how political discourse is engaged in the future," the writer and actress wrote on the event's Facebook page this week. "You have created a political movement, intended or not."

=====================

In addition to listening to the show on your computer, you can add to the discussion with your comments and questions. You can do that in either (or all) of three ways:

A.  Post a Comment/Question on this Blog at least one hour before the show begins.  Scroll down to "green box" (below) and click on "Comment".  It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not be approved). Commentors can choose to remain anonymous.

B.  Email a comment/question Confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government.  Mr. Buckley can then raise the question "on-air" without identifying you.

C. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question. However -- The host will ONLY "go to the phones" AFTER all the posted Comments (see green box, below) have been addressed.  Callers are welcome to add/ask a "follow-up" to those posted Comments.

Handy Links to "Open Government":

1. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

2. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

3. OMB's "Initial Assessment of OpenGov Plans" of Federal Agencies

4. OMB's "OpenGov Dashboard" for tracking Compliance by Federal Agencies

5. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

6. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)

"When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours.

Additional Links for Today's Show:

OpenGovRadio 7/28/10: A Tour of "Federal Register 2.0"

2010-07-27T01:03:00.014-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this Wednesday's OpenGovRadio show (July 29th, 2:00 pm ET):

A Tour of "Federal Register 2.0" with NARA's Ray Mosley

President Obama wants federal agencies to be "transparent, participatory, and collaborative".

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA; aka "National Archives") is responsible for maintaining federal documents (transparency) and uses the Federal Register to publicize federal proposals that are being offered for public review and comment (participation/collaboration). It has been doing this since 1936.

I'm Stephen Buckley, your host on OpenGovRadio, and my guest for this week's show will be Ray Mosley, Director of NARA's Office of the Federal Register. We'll be talking about the recent launch of "Federal Register 2.0".

Never heard of the Federal Register? Then you need to watch this intro video:

And some more about the development of "Federal Register 2.0":

In addition to listening to the show on your computer, you can add to the discussion with your comments and questions. You can do that in either (or all) of three ways:

A.  Post a Comment/Question on this Blog at least one hour before the show begins.  Scroll down to "green box" (below) and click on "Comment".  It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not be approved). Commentors can choose to remain anonymous.

B.  Email a comment/question Confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government.  Mr. Buckley can then raise the question "on-air" without identifying you.

C. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question. However -- The host will ONLY "go to the phones" AFTER all the posted Comments (see green box, below) have been addressed.  Callers are welcome to add/ask a "follow-up" to those posted Comments.

Handy Links to "Open Government":

1. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

2. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

3. OMB's "Initial Assessment of OpenGov Plans" of Federal Agencies

4. OMB's "OpenGov Dashboard" for tracking Compliance by Federal Agencies

5. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

6. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)

"When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours.

Additional Links for Today's Show:

7. National Archives homepage: NARA.gov

8. NARA's Open Government Webpage (and our 6/29/10 interview with Pamela Wright, head of NARA's OpenGov Team).

9. NARA's Office of the Federal Register

10. NARA's "Federal Register 2.0"

11. From the developers at GovPulse.US:
"GovPulse was built to .. open the doors of government to the people they work for. By making such documents as the Federal Register searchable, more accessible and easier to digest, GovPulse seeks to encourage every citizen to become more involved in the workings of their government and make their voice heard on the things that matter to them, from the smallest to the largest issues."

12. Washington Post (Ed O'Keefe, 7/26/10):
"Federal Register relaunching Web site to make it easier to navigate"

13. Federal News Radio (Max Cacas, 7/16/10):
"Federal Register Set to Unveil Extreme Makeover"

14. Federal News Radio (Chris Dorobek, 7/27/10):
"New Federal Register Website Opens Info to Public"

15. GovFresh.com (Luke Fretwell, 7/27/10)
"Government, citizen developers join forces to build new Federal Register 2.0 Website"

16. Free Tutorials: "The Federal Register: What It Is and How to Use It"

17. Regulations.gov (and our 5/18/10 interview with EPA's John Moses)

18. Follow the Federal Register on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FedRegister

=========================
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/ajyzhu

OpenGovRadio at Six Months: What's Been Learned

2010-07-19T23:00:00.003-04:00

This is what we'll talk about on OpenGovRadio tomorrow (Tues., July 20th at 2:00 pm ET):

"OpenGovRadio at Six Months: What's Been Learned"

Six months ago, in January, I started up OpenGovernmentRadio as a way to have a weekly, real-time discussion with the interesting people who are doing interesting work to make our government more "transparent, participatory, and collaborative." (Are you new to "OpenGov"? See links below.)

Using the "talk-radio" format, I invited guests to come on my one-hour show to talk about what they are doing in the Open Government intiative of the Obama administration. We also browse through "OpenGov" and related websites while the show's listeners follow along with us, and then we take questions and comments from listeners who have left blog-comments and/or call-in "live" to the show. (It's really fun, and the hour always flies right by.)  The archives of past shows can be found in the column to the right.

I scheduled the OpenGovRadio show for the same time every week ("Tuesdays at 2)", so that my listeners would be able to set-aside time to listen (and call-in) to the show.   However, I find that this is not as beneficial to people as I thought it would be. With everyone's (including potential guests) schedule always in flux, along with the fact that people can opt to listen to the show's recording later, I've decided to arrange and announce the upcoming show on an unscheduled, semi-regular basis.

So what does that mean?

I still plan to do the shows on weekday afternoons (because 11am Eastern is only 8am Pacific, etc.) while, at the time, shifting from a weekly show to one about every other week. And the flexibility will make it much easier, of course, for potential guests to choose a show-time that fits their schedule.

Also, because many of my invited guests are representing their government agency, the extra time for scheduling is useful for most agencies' Public Affairs Office because it appears that they each operate with different procedures for dealing with the public (including "the media"). And so, I never quite knew how long it will take for my invited guest to get "approval from Public Affairs".

But the most interesting thing that I've learned is what often happens when I am talking with the people in the Public Affairs offices in the various federal agencies. After they tell me their procedures for deciding if someone can come speak with "the media" (e.g., on OpenGovRadio), I then ask if these procedures are written down for me (or anyone else from the public) to see. The most common response is "Gee -- umm -- our Public Affairs procedures? Written down? Uhh, I don't know."

Now, that type of response raises a red flag with me .. for two reasons.

First off, as a former management auditor with the federal government, it was often my job to find out "what went wrong" to create a failure. So when people would tell me that they did follow the rules but that they "are not written down", then the main reason for the problem starts to become clear.

Secondly, here I am, talking with the Public Affairs office in a federal agency, trying to get information about how they plan to improve their Public Engagement practices.  But, while their new "Open Government Plan" talks about how they really, really want to do that in the future, they can't show anybody the existing rules for how they do things now! (OMG!)

No organization can improve on the way it does something unless it understands (i.e., can show to others) what it is doing NOW! (And, yes, the same thing applies to personal improvement.)

So now, I'm thinking that I may have to submit a Freedom of Information request in order to get a federal agency to divulge its current procedures for public engagement (aka, "open government").

Ironic, huh? So, if you want to keep up with my next step, you can subscribe-by-email to this blog by using that feature in the right-hand column.

But, in the meantime, I'd like to hear YOUR perspective on this or any other OpenGov topic. You can leave a comment below (anonymously if needed .. as a former fed, I understand why). And if you've read this far, I want you to know that I will be hosting OpenGovRadio tomorrow (July 20th) at 2:00 pm ET, but the invited guest is YOU!   I want to hear if YOU have anything -- a question, comment or suggestion on "Open Government" -- that YOU want to discuss.

You can do that in either (or all) of three ways:

1.  Post a Comment/Question on this Blog at least one hour before the show begins.  Scroll down to "green box" (below) and click on "Comment".  It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not be approved). Commentors can choose to remain anonymous.

2.  Email a comment/question Confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government.  Mr. Buckley can then raise the question "on-air" without identifying you.

3. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question.

------------------------------------

Handy Links to "Open Government":

1. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

2. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

3. OMB's "Initial Assessment of OpenGov Plans" of Federal Agencies

4. OMB's "OpenGov Dashboard" for tracking Compliance by Federal Agencies

5. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

6. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)

"When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours.

=================================
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/a54Qe5

OpenGovRadio 7/6/10: No Show This Week

2010-07-05T00:10:00.000-04:00

There will NOT be an OpenGovRadio show this week (Tues. July 6, 2010), but we will be back next week at our regular time (Tuesday 2 pm ET, July 13th).

Maybe you have some ideas for OpenGov discussion?

I am always open to your suggestions for guest to invite and/or topics to discuss in future shows. Just leave a comment below, or email me (confidentially) here. -- Stephen Buckley

OpenGovRadio 6/29/10: "NARA: Portal for Public Participation"

2010-06-28T01:00:00.008-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this weeks's OpenGovRadio show (Tues., June 29th, 2:00 pm ET):

"NARA: Portal for Public Participation"

President Obama wants federal agencies to be "transparent, participatory, and collaborative". But guess what? They already are. (But the National Archives can help them do better.)

The National Archives is responsible for maintaining federal documents (transparency) and for publishing public notices of proposed actions in the Federal Register (participation/collaboration).

I'm Stephen Buckley, your host on OpenGovRadio, and my guest for this week's show will be Pamela Wright from the Open Government Team at the National Archives.

In addition to listening to the show on your computer, you can add to the discussion with your comments and questions. You can do that in either (or all) of three ways:

A.  Post a Comment/Question on this Blog at least one hour before the show begins.  Scroll down to "green box" (below) and click on "Comment".  It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not be approved). Commentors can choose to remain anonymous.

B.  Email a comment/question Confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government.  Mr. Buckley can then raise the question "on-air" without identifying you.

C. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question. However -- The host will ONLY "go to the phones" AFTER all the posted Comments (see green box, below) have been addressed.  Callers are welcome to add/ask a "follow-up" to those posted Comments.

Handy Links to "Open Government":

1. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

2. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

3. OMB's "Initial Assessment of OpenGov Plans" of Federal Agencies

4. OMB's "OpenGov Dashboard" for tracking Compliance by Federal Agencies

5. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

6. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)

"When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours.

7. National Archives homepage: NARA.gov

8. NARA's Open Government Webpage

9. NARA's Office of the Federal Register

10. OMB's New Guidance on Cookies & 3rd-Party Apps - Nancy Scola's article (6/28/10) at techPresident.com

=============================
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/9WVK3L
.

OpenGovRadio 6/22/10: No Show Today

2010-06-22T00:33:00.001-04:00

There will NOT be an OpenGovRadio show this week (Tues. June 22, 2010).

We will be back next week (Tuesday 2 pm ET, June 29), and I am always open to your suggestions for guest to invite and/or topics to cover in future shows. Just leave a comment below, or email me here. -- Stephen Buckley

OpenGovRadio 6/15/10: "Checking for Culture-Change via MSPB Surveys"

2010-06-14T13:26:00.005-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this weeks's OpenGovRadio show (Tues., June 15th, 2:00 pm ET):

"Checking for Culture-Change via MSPB Surveys"

Virtually everyone agrees that a "culture change" is necessary in order for President Obama's Open Government Intiative to make federal departments and agencies more "transparent, participatory, and collaborative."

So, now that it's been a year and a half, has there been any "culture change"? (None? A little? A lot?) How are we supposed to know?

The most obvious way to determine (i.e., measure) "culture change" in any type of organization is to simply ask the people in that organization about the culture inside that organization. And then you come back, at some point in the future, and ask them the same questions again. Compare the results and, if you know what to look for, you can see the "culture change" (or lack thereof).

I'm Stephen Buckley, your host on OpenGovRadio, and my guest for the June 15th show will be Dr. John Crum, Director of the Office of Policy and Evaluation at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an independent quasi-judicial agency established to protect federal employees from "prohibited personnel practices", such as firing an employee for blowing the whistle on government waste (or for suggesting a way to make their agency's operations more "transparent" to the public).

Dr. Crum's office in MSPB conduct surveys of the federal civil service to determine whether they are free from "prohibited personnel practices". The largest MSPB study is the "Merit Principles Study" and involves a survey of federal employees that was last done in 2007. The latest one is happening this month.

Although the studies by MSPB do not measure "culture change", per se, they do show hard data from surveys that asked individual federal employees about various aspects of the culture in their office and the larger organization. For example, some of those questions ask for the employee's opinion as to whether he/she feels safe in challenging the status-quo by suggesting changes that could improve the organization's efficiency and effectiveness.

Don't want to wait 3 years for the next Merit Principles Survey (2013) to see if the OpenGov effort "changed the culture" of the federal bureaucracy? MSPB is asking for your suggestions -- now -- about what to study in the meantime, so here's your chance to ask MSPB to look more closely at OpenGov "culture change".

In addition to listening to the show on your computer, you can add to the discussion with your comments and questions. You can do that in either (or all) of three ways:

A.  Post a Comment/Question on this Blog at least one hour before the show begins.  Scroll down to "green box" (below) and click on "Comment".  It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not be approved). Commentors can choose to remain anonymous.

B.  Email a comment/question Confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government.  Mr. Buckley can then raise the question "on-air" without identifying you.

C. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question. However -- The host will ONLY "go to the phones" AFTER all the posted Comments (see green box, below) have been addressed.  Callers are welcome to add/ask a "follow-up" to those posted Comments.

Handy Links to "Open Government":

1. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

2. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

3. OMB's "Initial Assessment of OpenGov Plans" of Federal Agencies

4. OMB's "OpenGov Dashboard" for tracking Compliance by Federal Agencies

5. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

6. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)

"When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours.

7. MSPB home page

8. MSPB Open Government Plan

9. “The Power of Federal Employee Engagement” - MSPB report (Sept. 2008)

10. "Managing for Engagement – Communication, Connection, and Courage” - MSPB report (Aug. 2009)

11. The MSPB Studies Listserv (opt-in/opt-out email-list about MSPB studies)

12. Press Release (6/14/10) on new MSPB report:
“PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICES—A STUDY RETROSPECTIVE”

"MSPB’s reexamination of prohibited personnel practices will give particular attention to whistleblower retaliation. Upcoming studies will investigate what the law requires an employee to be considered a whistleblower, an examination of the whistleblower process, barriers to reporting wrongdoing, and a review of recent cases brought to MSPB to evaluate how whistleblowers fare in the adjudication of their complaints."

13. Earlier this year, the General Services Administration (GSA) asked the public to suggest (and vote on) ideas for making it more effective and efficient." The suggestion receiving the Most Votes was "Internal Transparency: Make It SAFE for Govt. Workers to Speak". (That includes safe whistleblowing about waste, fraud and abuse.)

=========================
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/aKofPS

OpenGovRadio 6/8/10: The Secret Public-Participation Act of 1969

2010-06-07T01:01:00.007-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this weeks's OpenGovRadio show (Tues., June 8st, 2:00 pm ET):

"The Secret Public-Participation Act of 1969"

Remember last fall, when you read about the 40th birthday of the Internet ("born" in 1969)? I bet many people (of a certain age) were amazed that it had been around for so long, because most people had not even heard about it until 1995 or so.

I know this from personal experience because, in the early 1990s, when I tried to tell my friends and others about a worldwide network of millions of people sending messages through their personal computers, the typical reaction was Disbelief, followed by Denial: "How can that be? Well, if that were true, then I would already know about it!"

That reaction seemed to occur more often in the Washington, D.C. area, where I lived at the time, due to the fact that they're are a lot more self-important people there. They simply couldn't handle the idea that there was something REALLY BIG going on -- for years -- and that they hadn't known about it.

Okay, so maybe you weren't one of those people. But, now, here's a test for you.

There's something else that's been around since 1969 that's REALLY BIG and that I bet you didn't really know about. It goes by another name but it really should be called "The Secret Public-Paricipation Act of 1969". That's because it's a U.S. law that requires federal departments and agencies to invite the public (that's you) to participate in their decision-making about their proposed policies and projects.

So, except for the minor decisions at federal agencies, like what kind of carpeting to buy, or how often to mow the grass around the buildings, YOU are supposed to be invited to comment on ALL the proposals that may affect or interest you. (Note: A permit for an oil drilling platform is not a minor decision, as has now become apparent.)

The official name of this law is the "National Enviromental Policy Act of 1969" (aka, NEPA). And, even though you may know it as the law that requires "Environmental Impact Statements" to be written, it is much more than that. It's a federal law for improving "transparency, participation, and collaboration" that was around for almost 40 years before the President Obama launched the "Open Government Initiative". It's just that a lot of people (like you?) don't know or think about it that way.

I'm Stephen Buckley, your host on OpenGovRadio, and my guest for the 6/8 show will be Judith Lee, owner of Environmental Planning Strategies, who has 25 years of experience and education in Natural Resource Management, Environmental Planning, and practical and effective implementation of NEPA and Public Involvement. According to Ms. Lee in a 1997 article:

"After 25 years, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is still highly misunderstood and inefficiently implemented. NEPA, however, incorporates the components of a quality public interdisciplinary planning process. The components that make NEPA a powerful planning process - recognition of the role of uncertainty, interpersonal collaboration, nonlinear processes, and decision making with administrative and political risk - tend to make NEPA discomforting, at best, to many managers and practitioners. NEPA is not about more bullet-proof documents, more talented writers, more thorough data, more controllable public involvement processes, or even correct decisions. NEPA is about more participatory planning, incorporating the messy human components of values, politics, change, uncertainty, risk, strategy, emotions, and the diversity of personalities and life experiences that shape ourselves, our coping mechanisms, and our relationships."

In addition to listening to the show on your computer, you can add to the discussion with your comments and questions. You can do that in either (or all) of three ways:

A.  Post a Comment/Question on this Blog at least one hour before the show begins.  Scroll down to "green box" (below) and click on "Comment".  It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not be approved). Commentors can choose to remain anonymous.

B.  Email a comment/question Confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government.  Mr. Buckley can then raise the question "on-air" without identifying you.

C. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question. However -- The host will ONLY "go to the phones" AFTER all the posted Comments (see green box, below) have been addressed.  Callers are welcome to add/ask a "follow-up" to those posted Comments.

Handy Links to "Open Government":

1. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

2. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

3. OMB's "Initial Assessment of OpenGov Plans" of Federal Agencies

4. OMB's "OpenGov Dashboard" for tracking Compliance by Federal Agencies

5. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

6. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)

"When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours.

7. President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) - http://www.nepa.gov/

8. The BP oil spill and NEPA compliance (or lack thereof), as mentioned in an editorial by the Washington Post (6/6/10):

"Actually, it seems that for years government regulators dismissed the possibility that a big blowout could occur, downplaying the likelihood of that scenario in three 2007 studies and issuing BP a waiver from more detailed environmental analysis last year."

9. "U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study" - Washington Post (5/4/10)

10. Flowchart Diagram of the NEPA Process (from LucindaLowSwartz.com)

11. CEQ's "Citizen's Guide to NEPA" (2007)

12. CEQ's "Collaboration in NEPA" (2007)

13. CEQ's 30-Day Review of MMS NEPA Procedures for OCS Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (Note: FedReg notice says public comments due ASAP, not due June 17th).

=================================
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/bEWKwP

OpenGovRadio 6/1/10: The 1990s' Origins of OpenGov

2010-06-01T13:52:00.000-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this weeks's OpenGovRadio show (Tues., June 1st, 2:00 pm ET):

"The 1990s' Origins of Today's Open Government Initiative"

Newsflash: President Obama did not invent the principles of "open government". There are new buzzwords, but people have been evangelizing about, and proving the value of, better communication between citizens and their government for many, many years. Although new to many people, the idea of "Open Government" is the just latest name for the ongoing effort.

Your host on OpenGovRadio is Stephen Buckley, and his guest will be Bruce Waltuck, former head of the Government Division of the American Society for Quality. Bruce Waltuck has spent more than 30 years as a leader in government quality and process improvement. He worked 26 years for the U.S. Department of Labor, where he co-created and managed the DOL's award-winning Employee Involvement and Quality Improvement system. Bruce is a senior member of the American Society for Quality, where he has served on the Board of the Government Division for over 10 years. Bruce hosts the Divisions series of webinars on successful government improvement, which draws an international audience. You can learn about the ASQ Government Division at www.asq.org/gov Bruce is also a member of the Plexus Institute, and he holds a unique Masters degree in Complexity, Chaos, and Creativity. Bruce has written and taught about government improvement throughout the US, Canada, Brazil, and Southeast Asia.

Because Bruce has been at the forefront of government improvement for more than 25 years, we'll be talking with him about the history of work to improve government, and the reasons why each generation of managers and leaders seems to forget what happened "B.T." - before them. Bruce will also talk about ways to re-connect to the body of existing knowledge on government improvement, and the Government Division's current initiative to spread the knowledge and practice of better government around the world.In addition to listening to the show on your computer, you can add to the discussion with your comments and questions.  You can do that in either (or all) of three ways:

A.  Post a Comment/Question on this Blog at least one hour before the show begins.  Scroll down to "green box" (below) and click on "Comment".  It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not be approved). Commentors can choose to remain anonymous.

B.  Email a comment/question Confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government.  Mr. Buckley can then raise the question "on-air" without identifying you.

C. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question. However -- The host will NOT answer callers until AFTER all the posted Comments (see link, below) have been addressed.  Callers are welcome to add/ask a "follow-up" to those posted Comments.

Handy Links to "Open Government":

1. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

2. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

3. OMB's "Initial Assessment of OpenGov Plans" of Federal Agencies

4. OMB's "OpenGov Dashboard" for tracking Compliance by Federal Agencies

5. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

6. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)

"When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours.

7. Open Government Directive Workshop (#5 in Series) was Monday, May 24th (1:00 to 4:30pm) at U.S. Dept. of Treasury. (OGD Workshops info here.)

8. The Amercian Society for Quality's Government Division

=================================

OpenGovRadio 5/25/10: Talking with White House/OSTP's Eugene Huang

2010-05-24T01:00:00.009-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this weeks's OpenGovRadio show (Tues., May 25th, 2:00 pm ET):

"Talking with White House/OSTP's Eugene Huang"

Your host on OpenGovRadio is Stephen Buckley, and his guest will be Eugene Huang, Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chief Technology Officer in the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). We'll be talking with him about the White House's approach for implementing the Open Government Directive, both at OSTP and government-wide.

From August 2009 to April 2010, Mr. Huang served as the Government Operations Director for the National Broadband Task Force at the Federal Communications Commission, and was part of the team responsible for authoring “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan”.

Mr. Huang served at the United States Department of the Treasury under two Secretaries of the Treasury from 2006 to 2009, as Policy Advisor to the Secretary and previously as a White House Fellow.  From 2002 to 2006, Mr. Huang served the Commonwealth of Virginia under Governor Mark R. Warner as the Secretary of Technology and previously as the Deputy Secretary of Technology. At the time of his appointment as Secretary of Technology in 2004, he was the youngest cabinet member in Virginia history at the age of 28.

In addition to listening to the show on your computer, you can add to the discussion with your comments and questions.  You can do that in either (or all) of three ways:

A.  Post a Comment/Question on this Blog at least one hour before the show begins.  Scroll down to "green box" (below) and click on "Comment".  It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not be approved). Commentors can choose to remain anonymous.

B.  Email a comment/question Confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government.  Mr. Buckley can then raise the question "on-air" without identifying you.

C. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question. However -- The host will NOT answer callers until AFTER all the posted Comments (see link, below) have been addressed.  Callers are welcome to add/ask a "follow-up" to those posted Comments.

Handy Links to "Open Government":

1. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

2. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

3. OMB's "Initial Assessment of OpenGov Plans" of Federal Agencies

4. OMB's "OpenGov Dashboard" for tracking Compliance by Federal Agencies

5. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

6. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)

"When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours.

7. Open Government Directive Workshop (#5 in Series) was Monday, May 24th (1:00 to 4:30pm) at U.S. Dept. of Treasury. (OGD Workshops info here.)

8. OSTP's Open Government Webpage, including the following links:

a. OSTP's Open Government Plan 1.0 (4/7/10)

b. "Following Public Evaluation, OSTP Upgrades Open Government Plan" and the resultant Open Government Plan 1.2 (4/26/10)

9. OpentheGovernment's Evaluation of OpenGov Plans by federal agencies. For the press-release, click here.
=================================
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/aGJQYQ

OpenGovRadio 5/18/10: Talking with EPA's Lisa Schlosser

2010-05-17T01:02:00.017-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this weeks's OpenGovRadio show (Tues., May 18th, 2:00 pm ET):

"Talking with EPA's Lisa Schlosser"

Your host on OpenGovRadio is Stephen Buckley, and his guest will be Lisa Schlosser, leader of the Open Government team at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We'll be talking with her, of course, about EPA's OpenGov Plan and their efforts to implement it.

Ms. Schlosser is also Director of the EPA's Office of Environment Information which manages environmental information, runs the governmentwide e-regulation Web site (regulations.gov), and manages EPA's Freedom Of Information Act requests.

============================

NOTICE: Our scheduled guest, Lisa Schlosser is unable to participate on today's show, but she is being replaced by John Moses, Director of the Communications Strategies Division with EPA's Office of Environmental Information. Mr. Moses was the "Evaluator" for EPA's Self-Evalutation of its Open Government Plan (see link 9.e, below).

=============================

In addition to listening to the show on your computer, you can add to the discussion with your comments and questions. You can do that in either (or all) of three ways:

A. Post a Comment/Question on this Blog at least one hour before the show begins. Scroll down to "green box" (below) and click on "Comment". It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not be approved). Commentors can choose to remain anonymous.

B. Email a comment/question Confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government. Mr. Buckley can then raise the question "on-air" without identifying you.

C. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question. However -- The host will NOT answer callers until AFTER all the posted Comments (see link, below) have been addressed. Callers are welcome to add/ask a "follow-up" to those posted Comments.

Handy Links to "Open Government":

1. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

2. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

3. OMB's "Initial Assessment of OpenGov Plans" of Federal Agencies

4. OMB's "OpenGov Dashboard" for tracking Compliance by Federal Agencies

5. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

6. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)

"When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours.

7. Open Government Directive Workshop (#5 in Series) is Monday, May 24th (1:00 to 4:30pm) at U.S. Dept. of Treasury. (Previous OGD Workshops info here.)

8. Next Week's Guest: Eugene Huang, Special Advisor to Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra, in the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy

9. EPA's Open Government Webpage, including the following links:

a. EPA's Open Government Plan 1.0 (4/7/10) PDF file: 53 pages

b. Discussion Forum on EPA's OpenGov Plan

c.  EPA's Open Government Timeline

d.  EPA's Flagship Initiative Projects

e.  EPA's Self Evaluation (4/23/10) of its OpenGov Plan

--------------------------------------
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/bgpb5a

OpenGovRadio 5/4/10: "GovFresh at One Year: Talking with Luke Fretwell"

2010-05-10T19:46:00.003-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this weeks's OpenGovRadio show (Tues., May 11th, 2:00 pm ET):

"GovFresh at One Year: Talking with Luke Fretwell"

Your host on OpenGovRadio is Stephen Buckley, and his guest will be Luke Fretwell, creator and operator of GovFresh, which "works to inspire government-citizen collaboration and build a more engaged democracy" and features "Gov 2.0, open gov news, guides, TV, tech, people and official U.S. government feeds, all in one place", including GovFreshTV and MilFresh. Luke grew up, worked and lived in the Washington, DC, area before moving to the San Francisco Bay Area.

In addition to listening to the show on your computer, you can add to the discussion with your comments and questions.  There are three ways for you to do that:

A.  Post it, now, as a "Comment" at the end of this posting (scroll down to "green box").  It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not appear). Commentors do not need to identify themselves. They may also choose to ...

B. Email a comment/question confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government.  Mr. Buckley can ask the question for you, but if you want to "call in", then he needs your phone number in order to see your incoming call.

C. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question. However, preference will be given to callers who have already provided their question/comment by posting on this blog.

Handy Links to "Open Government":

1. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

2. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

3. OMB's "Initial Assessment of OpenGov Plans" of Federal Agencies

4. OMB's "OpenGov Dashboard" for tracking Compliance by Federal Agencies

5. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

6. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)

"When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours.

7. Notes from Open Government Directive Workshop (#4 in Series) held 4/28/10 at USDA HQ

-----------------------------------------
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/ddIrpZ

OpenGovRadio 5/4/10: Evaluating the OpenGov Plans of Federal Agencies

2010-05-04T01:02:00.004-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this weeks's OpenGovRadio show (Tues., May 4th, 2:00 pm ET):

"Evaluating the OpenGov Plans of Federal Agencies"

Joining me, your host Stephen Buckley, will be Patrice McDermott of OpentheGovernment, a coalition of organizations that recently released its evaluations of the Open Goverment Plans of federal agencies. Also joining us is Robbie Schingler of NASA's OpenGov team that developed the OpenGov Plan judged "#1" by OpentheGovernment.

The Open Government Initiative began on President Obama's first full day in office when he signed the Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, followed last December with issuance of the Open Government Directive to federal agencies and, on April 7th, the release of Open Government Plans by every federal agency on how they plan to be more "transparent, participatory, and collaborative."

Last week, the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) released its evaluation of whether the federal agencies met the requirements contained in the OMB's Open Government Directive. OMB took a "check-list" approach (i.e., did an OpenGov Plan meet an OGD requirement, or not). OpentheGovernment took a "score-card" approach (i.e., how well was an OGD requirement met).

OpenGovRadio's host Stephen Buckley invites you to listen on your computer and, if you wish, add to the discussion with your comments and questions.  There are three options to participate:

A.  Post it, now, as a "Comment" at the end of this posting (scroll down to "green box").  It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not appear). Commentors do not need to identify themselves. They may also choose to ...

B. Email a comment/question confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government.  Mr. Buckley can ask the question for you, but if you want to "call in", then he needs your phone number in order to see your incoming call.

C. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question. However, first preference will be given to callers who have already provided their question/comment, AND who haved provided a phone number with which to identify their incoming call.

Links for following the discussion:

1. OpentheGovernment's Evaluation of OpenGov Plans by federal agencies. For the press-release, click here.

2. OMB's "Initial Assessment of OpenGov Plans" by federal agencies

3. OMB's "OpenGov Dashboard" for Tracking Agency Compliance
http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around (then click on an agency's name for its OpenGov Plan)

4. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

5. "What Government Plans Are Missing" by Andrea Di Maio, The Gartner Group (4/1/10)

6. How We Will Measure the Success of Open Government at HHS
http://www.hhs.gov/open/plan/opengovernmentplan/change/measure_1.html

7. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)
Excerpt: "When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0410/040710mm.htm

8. Open Government Directive Workshop (#4 in Series) -- Wednesday, April 28th in D.C. (@USDA)

9. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

10. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

11. Open Government Directive google-group is an "opt-in/opt-out" moderated email-group (137 members) about OGD news & discussion.

12. NextGov 4/27/10: Agencies Issue Self-Evaluations for Open Government Plans
      NextGov 5/3/10: Group Gives Most Open Government Plans Mediocre Marks

===========================
Short URL for this blog-post:
http://bit.ly/b5bKX6

OpenGovRadio 4/28/10: No Show Today (I'm on travel to D.C.)

2010-04-27T01:00:00.001-04:00

Because I will be traveling, and because we had such a good show last week with Beth Noveck (sorry that we could not get to all your calls), I hope you will understand if I skip the regular show this week, and save the energy for next week's show (Tues. at 2 pm ET) when we will be talking about the OMB's evaluations (due out May 1st) of the federal agencies' OpenGov Plans. By that time, we should also see others' evaluations coming out (e.g., by OpentheGovernment.org).

In the meantime, I am traveling to D.C. to help with running the (free) Open Government Directive Workshop (#4 in the series) on Wednesday morning (9:00-12:15) at the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture headquarters. Last time I checked, there were still some spots left and, if you can not attend in person, check out the online option for "remote participant".

If another related event develops (like a happy-hour for OpenGov-ers), I will post it on my twitter accounts, which you can check at @transpartisan and @OpenGovRadio.

-- Stephen Buckley

OpenGovRadio 4/20/10: Beth Noveck Takes Your OpenGov Questions

2010-04-19T01:02:00.001-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this weeks's OpenGovRadio show (Tues., April 20th, 2:00 pm ET):

"Beth Noveck Takes Your OpenGov Questions"

Joining me, your host Stephen Buckley, will be Beth Noveck,  the White House's Deputy Chief Technology Officer. Ms. Noveck's primary responsbility has been President Obama's Open Government Initiative.

(From Wikipedia:) Based at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, she is an expert on technology and institutional innovation. Previously, Noveck directed the Institute for Information Law & Policy and the Democracy Design Workshop at New York Law School where she is on-leave as a professor. She is founder of the "Do Tank," and the State of Play Conferences, and launched the first of its kind Peer-to-Patent community patent review project in collaboration with the United States Patent and Trade Office. She has taught in the areas of intellectual property, innovation, and constitutional law, as well as courses on electronic democracy and electronic government. She is the author of the book Wiki Government, about how technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful.

The Open Government Initiative began on President Obama's first full day in office when he signed the Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, followed last December with issuance of the Open Government Directive to federal agencies and, on April 7th, the release of Open Government Plans by every federal agency on how they plan to be more "transparent, participatory, and collaborative."

After some discussion about Ms. Noveck's perspective on the progress made thus far, we will turn to take your questions and comments, especially from those people in the federal agencies who are responsible for implementing their agency's "OpenGov" Plan.

OpenGovRadio's host Stephen Buckley invites you to listen on your computer and, if you wish, add to the discussion with your comments and questions.  However, because the listeners' response to this topic may be greater than usual, there are three options to participate:

A.  Post it, now, as a "Comment" at the end of this posting (scroll down to "green box").  It must be concise, and focused on the Open Government Initiative (or else it will not appear). Commentors do not need to identify themselves. They may also choose to ...

B. Email a comment/question confidentially to your host Stephen Buckley, who fully understands the risk of raising unwelcome questions within the government.  Mr. Buckley can ask the question for you, but if you want to "call in", then he needs your phone number in order to see your incoming call.

C. Call-in "live" to (917) 388-4210 with your comment/question. However, first preference will be given to callers who have already provided their question/comment, AND who haved provided a phone number with which to identify their incoming call.

Links for following the discussion:

1. Listing of Federal Agencies' OpenGov Plans
http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around (then click on an agency's name)

2. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

3. "What Government Plans Are Missing" by Andrea Di Maio, The Gartner Group (4/1/10)

4. How We Will Measure the Success of Open Government at HHS
http://www.hhs.gov/open/plan/opengovernmentplan/change/measure_1.html

5. "OpenTheGovernment.org and [their] partners will be using [the Open Government Directive] to evaluate the Open Government Plans, and grade them on whether they live up to both the letter, and the spirit, of the [OGD] requirements." https://sites.google.com/site/opengovtplans/

6. A Test of Leadership by Brian Friel (Government Executive magazine, 3/17/10)
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0310/031710mm.htm

7. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)
Excerpt: "When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0410/040710mm.htm

8. DorobekInsider.com compendium of the previos week's OpenGov links (w/ survey question at bottom)

9. Participedia.net is a consists of user-generated information about participatory methods and organizations (e.g., NCDD, IAP2, etc.) throughout the world.

10. ParticipationCamp.org -- April 17th & 18th (Sat./Sun.) in D.C.

11. Open Government Directive Workshop (#4 in Series) -- Wednesday, April 28th in D.C. (@USDA)

12. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

13. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

14. CoffeePartyUSA.com is a group that is promoting civil discourse for an "Age of Participation".

15. Open Government Directive google-group is an "opt-in/opt-out" moderated email-group (137 members) about OGD news & discussion.

====================================
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/c8t2Jp

OpenGovRadio 4/13/10: Review of OpenGov Plans - Version 1.0

2010-04-12T01:02:00.005-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this weeks's OpenGovRadio show (Tues., April 13th, 2:00 pm ET):

"Review of OpenGov Plans - Version 1.0"

Joining me, your host Stephen Buckley, will be Jenn Gustetic, an Associate at PhaseOneConsulting Group. Ms. Gustetic blogs about Open Government and assisted in developing the OpenGov Plan for the U.S. Department of Transportation. We'll be touching on the following points.

A. With the OpenGov Plans by federal agencies released this past Wednesday (April 7th), how do we judge whether a Plan is adequate to the task?

B. What are the critical elements, and are they present?

C. Are these Plans for increasing transparency actually clear enough to be followed?

OpenGovRadio's host Stephen Buckley invites you to listen on your computer and, if you wish, join the live conversation with your comments and questions by calling (917) 388-4210.

Links for following the discussion:

1. Listing of Federal Agencies' OpenGov Plans
http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around (then click on an agency's name)

2. GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

3. "What Government Plans Are Missing" by Andrea Di Maio, The Gartner Group (4/1/10)

4. How We Will Measure the Success of Open Government at HHS
http://www.hhs.gov/open/plan/opengovernmentplan/change/measure_1.html

5. "OpenTheGovernment.org and [their] partners will be using [the Open Government Directive] to evaluate the Open Government Plans, and grade them on whether they live up to both the letter, and the spirit, of the [OGD] requirements." https://sites.google.com/site/opengovtplans/

6. A Test of Leadership by Brian Friel (Government Executive magazine, 3/17/10)
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0310/031710mm.htm

7. Transparent Leadership by Roger Schwarz (Government Executive magazine, 4/7/10)
Excerpt: "When you are transparent, you create better results and relationships because others understand your thinking. People always are trying to find the meaning of actions, especially leaders' behaviors. When you fail to be transparent, you increase the chance that others will come up with their own theories about your intentions and motives - theories that often will differ from yours. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0410/040710mm.htm

8. DorobekInsider.com compendium of this past week's OpenGov links (w/ survey question at bottom)

9. Participedia.net is a consists of user-generated information about participatory methods and organizations (e.g., NCDD, IAP2, etc.) throughout the world.

10. ParticipationCamp.org -- April 17th & 18th (Sat./Sun.) in D.C.

11. Open Government Directive Workshop (#4 in Series) -- Wednesday, April 28th in D.C. (@USDA)

12. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

13. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

14. CoffeePartyUSA.com is a group that is promoting civil discourse for an "Age of Participation".

15. Open Government Directive google-group is an "opt-in/opt-out" moderated email-group (137 members) about OGD news & discussion.

====================================
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/azfiVa

OpenGovRadio 4/6/10: Spotting Holes in the OpenGov Plans for Pubilc Engagement

2010-04-06T02:59:00.008-04:00

Here's what we'll discuss on this weeks's OpenGovRadio show (2-3pm ET, Tuesday, April 6th):

"Spotting the Holes in OpenGov Plans for Public Engagement"

A. With the OpenGov Plans by federal agencies to be released this Wednesday (April 7th), how are we to judge whether a Plan is adequate to the task?

B. What are the critical elements, and are they present?

C. Are these Plans for increasing transparency actually clear enough to be followed?

D. And are there loopholes that allow for "fake public participation"?

Joining us will be J. H. Snider with whom, during our March 2nd show, we had a short discussion about the the practice of "fake public participation". His paper (along with two other authors; see below) appeared in a special issue of the Int'l. Journal of Public Participation about the Obama administration's "Open Government" initiative.

1. "Deterring Fake Public Participation" by J. H. Snider, PhD. (prior to issuance of Open Government Directive, 12/8/09).

J.H. Snider, Ph.D., the president of iSolon.org, has written extensively about information policy and democratic reform. During Spring Semester 2008, he was a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government‘s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. From 2001 to 2007, he was a Markle Fellow, Senior Research Fellow, and Research Director at the New America Foundation. From 1999 to 2000, he was an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow in Communications and Public Policy. He has served on many public bodies, including as an elected school board member in Burlington, Vermont.

OpenGovRadio's host Stephen Buckley invites you to listen on your computer and, if you wish, join the live conversation with your comments and questions by calling (917) 388-4210.

Other links that we may discuss:

2. "Previewing Agencies’ Open Government Plans" last week at the White House Conference Center (4/3/10) as reported by NCDD's representative Lucas Cioffi.

3. "What Government Plans Are Missing" by Andrea Di Maio, The Gartner Group (4/1/10)

4. Participedia.net is a consists of user-generated information about participatory methods and organizations (e.g., NCDD, IAP2, etc.) throughout the world.

5. ParticipationCamp.org -- April 17th & 18th (Sat./Sun.) in D.C.

6. Open Government Directive Workshop (#4 in Series) -- Wednesday, April 28th in D.C. (@USDA)

7. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

8. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

9. CoffeePartyUSA.com is a group that is promoting civil discourse for an "Age of Participation".

10. Open Government Directive google-group is an "opt-in/opt-out" moderated email-group (137 members) about OGD news & discussion.

11. "Open Government Day Arrives April 7" by OMBwatch blog (4/6/10)

==========================

Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/blsZQA

OpenGovRadio 3/30/10: Who should own "OpenGov" within a federal agency?

2010-03-30T03:40:00.003-04:00

Here's what we'll talk about on OpenGovRadio during this week's show (2-3pm ET, Tuesday, March 30th):

Who should own "OpenGov" within a federal agency?

In other words, which particular office within a federal agency (e.g., Public Affairs, Info.Technology, CIO, etc.) should have primary responsibility for implementing that agency's "Open Government Plan"?

Or should no one particular office be responsible?

We'll be talking with Steve Radick, an Associate at Booz Allen Hamilton where he works in their "social media/Government 2.0 practice, working with clients across the public sector to integrate social media strategies and tactics into their organizational strategies".

Mr. Radick also has a blog called "Social Media Strategery" at which he recently wrote a post (see linked title, below) discussing which part of an organization should own "social media". Also known as "Web 2.0", those technologies are also expected to be a significant factor in the Open Government Plans of federal agencies (which are due on April 7th).

1. "Who Owns Social Media? Everyone and No One"
by Steve Radick, Social Media Strategery, 3/23/10

OpenGovRadio's host Stephen Buckley invites you to listen on your computer and, if you wish, join the live conversation with your comments and questions by calling (917) 388-4210.

Other links of interest:

2. TransparencyCamp 2010 (last weekend) Schedule, Video, and Community

3. ParticipationCamp -- Saturday, April 17th in D.C.

4. Open Government Directive Workshop (#4 in Series) -- Wednesday, April 28th in D.C. (USDA)

5. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

6. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

7. Breaking News: "USDA Releases Draft Open-Gov Plan" - Federal Computer Week (3/29/30)

================
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/bCsL4Z

OpenGovRadio 3/23/10: "Citizen Collaboration" - How's It Working?

2010-03-23T03:21:00.004-04:00

Here's what we'll talk about on OpenGovRadio during this week's show (2-3pm ET, Tuesday, March 23rd). We invite you to listen and, if you wish, join the conversation by calling in with your comments and questions (917) 388-4210.

OpenGov "Citizen Collaboration": How's it Working?

This past Friday, March 19th, was the closing date for citizens to offer their ideas for "open government" at 27 federal agencies. Most agencies followed the White House's example and used the same "citizen engagement tool" that was offered during last summer's "Open Government Dialogue", while the the rest used other tools.

So, it seems like a good time to ask: "How has it been working?"

We'll be talking with Dan Munz, a "Public Dialogue Specialist" on the Citizen Engagement Team at the GSA (General Services Administration) which has been offering services and training for its "citizen engagement tool" to federal agencies. Before coming to the GSA, Mr. Munz worked at the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) on its Collaboration Project, described as "a 'wikified' space is designed to share ideas, examples and insights on the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in the field of public governance."

Also, joining us will be Stephen Konieczka with whom, during our March 2nd show, we had a short discussion about the White House's "Open Government Dialogue" last May and June. His paper (along with two other authors; see below) appeared in a special issue of the Int'l. Journal of Public Participation about the Obama administration's "Open Government" initiative.

Stephen Konieczka is a fifth year doctoral candidate in the University of Colorado, Boulder, Department of Communication. His primary scholarship foci are in group communication, communication theory and philosophy, and qualitative methods of inquiry. In his paper (see link below), his evaluation is based on the "Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation" adopted by the International Assn. for Public Participation (IAP2).

1. "Practicing a Participatory Presidency?: An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Open Government Dialogue" by Stephen P. Konieczka (prior to issuance of Open Government Directive, 12/8/09).

Abstract. Early in his presidency, Barack Obama promised the most open and transparent administration in United States history (Obama, 2009). This article assesses that commitment in practice by examining the Obama administration’s “Open Government Dialogue” (OGD), a six-week, online public participation experiment conducted in the summer of 2009.

Through the lens of the International Association of Public Participation’s “Core Values of Public Participation,” the author considers the extent to which the design and processes of the OGD reflected the administration’s stated commitment to public participation in government decision making. Based on an analysis of participant contributions during the OGD, and the reflections and critiques among public participation advocates and practitioners outside the formal channels of the OGD, it is concluded the OGD was a poorly designed and facilitated participatory experiment falling far short of the administration’s pronouncements about its commitment to public participation.

Although this general conclusion is troubling, that the administration undertook such a large, unmandated participatory experiment, suggests it will continue to engage in public participation experiments. This article proceeds from a position of assistance to the administration and the public in learning from the mistakes and shortcomings of the OGD, as well as its successes.

In the final analysis, the administration needs to better translate its expressed support of public participation into concrete practices through a stronger understanding of the purposes and design of public participation. The public, especially participation advocates and practitioners must decide whether to exert pressure on the administration to demonstrate in practice an understanding of public participation in government decision making as a right.

2.  Federal agencies using "Citizen Engagement Tools"

3. White House's "Open Government Dialogue" - May/June 2009

a. Phase 1 - Brainstorming
b. Phase 2 - Discussion (link is inactive)
c. Phase 3 - Drafting

4. The Collaboration Project of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)

5. Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) - Sept. 2009

6. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

7. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

8. The IAP2's "Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation"

9. User Survey/Evaluation of "Open Government Dialogue" - presented at White House (October 2009)

10.  ParticipationDB - Tim Bonnemann's catalog of Online Participation Tools

11.  Not responding to suggestions increases cynicism. "A Test of Leadership"  (GovExec.com, 3/17/10)

12.  The First Web-forum for Public Comment on a Proposal by U.S. Govt. (S. Buckley, June 1997)

====================
Short URL for this posting:
   http://bit.ly/bXplSO

OpenGovRadio 3/16/10: Are We in an "OpenGov Bubble"?

2010-03-15T17:23:00.007-04:00

Here's what we'll talk about on OpenGovRadio during this week's show (2-3pm ET, Tuesday, March 16th). We invite you to listen and, if you wish, join the conversation by calling in with your comments and questions (917) 388-4210.

We briefly touched on Tom Bryer's concern during our March 2nd show when we talked with him and two other authors whose papers appeared in a special issue of the Int'l. Journal of Public Participation about the Obama administration's "Open Government" initiative.

Is the "Open Government Initiative" of the Obama administration creating a "democracy bubble" where the expectations of "OpenGov" advocates and other citizens have been raised to an overly optimistic level?

Here's a short intro to that special issue of the IJP2 is described (below) by IJP2 Editor Steven N. Pyser:

The International Journal of Public Participation (IJP2) brings together academicians and practitioners interested in a multidisciplinary forum for the exchange of information among researchers, practitioners, decision makers, and citizens about public participation and its impact around the world. We seek to provide a scholarly record through intellectual contributions to the literature for research, practice and teaching.

This Special Symposium issue (Volume 4, Number 1) examines, among other things, what, if any influence electing Barack Obama has had on the field of public participation. Through a commitment to continuous improvement and sharing innovative approaches, IJP2 continues to offer intellectual contributions that support multidisciplinary-based scholarship, the public interest, practice and learning as well as professional preparation.

At the same time, these materials add a necessary public participation voice to the political discourse and a resource for consideration by political leaders, public managers, citizens and all those who help to shape and implement public policy and national/local governance.

Thomas A. Bryer is an assistant professor of public administration in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. His research interests include civic engagement, collaborative public management, and bureaucratic responsiveness. For his paper in the IJP2, click on this link:

1. "President Obama, Public Participation, and an Agenda for Research and Experimentation" by Thomas A. Bryer

SPECIAL NOTE: As promised earlier, I will be hosting a separate show for each of the other two authors, so that we (i.e., including our callers) can delve more deeply into each of their papers (below). -- SB

2. "Practicing a Participatory Presidency?: An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Open Government Dialogue" by Stephen P. Konieczka

3. "Deterring Fake Public Participation" by J. H. Snider, Ph.D.

Some other relevant OpenGov references:

4. President Obama's Memorandum on "Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)

5. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

6. The IAP2's "Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation"

================================
Short URL for this posting: http://bit.ly/djU7z2

OpenGovRadio 3/9/10: Last Saturday's "Gov2.0 Camp New England"

2010-03-08T19:06:00.002-05:00

Here's what we'll be talking about on this week's show of OpenGovRadio (2-3pm ET, Tuesday, March 9th). We invite you to listen and join the conversation by calling in with your comments and questions (917) 388-4210.

We will looking back at last Saturday's "Gov2.0 Camp New England" at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Mass. (aka, "Gov20NE") was "an unconference about using social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies to create a more effective, efficient and collaborative government."

We will talking with the Gov20NE's organizers: Laurel Ruma, Jess Weiss, Sarah Bourne, and (we hope) Yasmin Fodil and Rob Goodspeed.

After they share their descriptions and impressions about the gathering, we'll turn to our listeners who can call-in with their comments and questions. Did you attend in-person? online? We'd like to hear your feedback on what you got out of it, as well as how things could be improved for future events. Or maybe you'd like to tell us about another upcoming "OpenGov" activities in the New England region.

Here are the main links that we'll be visiting during the show's discussion:

1. The Wiki-pages for Gov2.0 Camp New England

2. People who registered for "Gov20NE" (but may not have attended)

3. Massachusetts Governor's "Civic Engagement" webpage for state agencies

And it's always handy to have these standard OpenGov references:

4. President Obama's Memorandum on "Transparency and Open Government" (1/21/09)

5. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

6. The IAP2's "Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation"

=======================================
NEXT Week (3/16/10): Thomas Bryer returns for a more in-depth discussion about danger of the "democracy bubble" in the Open Government movement, as described in his paper "President Obama, Public Participation, and an Agenda for Research and Experimentation".
=======================================

Short URL to use for this posting: http://bit.ly/bP0wcG

OpenGovRadio 3/2/10: Learning from the First Year of the OpenGov Initiative

2010-03-01T18:57:00.002-05:00

Here's what we'll be talking about on this week's show of OpenGovRadio (2-3pm ET, Tuesday, March 2nd). We invite you to listen and join the conversation by calling in with your comments and questions (917) 388-4210.

We will looking back at the first year of the White House's "Open Government Initiative" for "Lessons Learned" (not to be confused with "Lessons-To-Be-Learned"). As a starting point, we will talk with the authors of three articles in the current issue of the International Journal of Public Participation: “Obama Administration and Public Participation".

Here is an brief desription, by IJP2 Editor Steven N. Pyser, about the special theme of the current issue:

The International Journal of Public Participation (IJP2) brings together academicians and practitioners interested in a multidisciplinary forum for the exchange of information among researchers, practitioners, decision makers, and citizens about public participation and its impact around the world. We seek to provide a scholarly record through intellectual contributions to the literature for research, practice and teaching.

This Special Symposium issue (Volume 4, Number 1) examines, among other things, what, if any influence electing Barack Obama has had on the field of public participation. Through a commitment to continuous improvement and sharing innovative approaches, IJP2 continues to offer intellectual contributions that support multidisciplinary-based scholarship, the public interest, practice and learning as well as professional preparation.

At the same time, these materials add a necessary public participation voice to the political discourse and a resource for consideration by political leaders, public managers, citizens and all those who help to shape and implement public policy and national/local governance.

SPECIAL NOTE: An hour is not long enough to do anything more than scratch the surface in discussing the points raised in these three articles (see links, below). Therefore, I will be hosting a show for each author, so that we (i.e., including our callers) can delve more deeply into each of their articles. I'm not ignoring the other fine articles in this issue but, at this point, I'm trying to be judicious. -- SB

1. President Obama, Public Participation, and an Agenda for Research and Experimentation

Thomas A. Bryer is an assistant professor of public administration in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. His research interests include civic engagement, collaborative public management, and bureaucratic responsiveness.

2. Practicing a Participatory Presidency?: An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Open Government Dialogue

Stephen P. Konieczka is a fifth year doctoral candidate in the University of Colorado, Boulder, Department of Communication. His primary scholarship foci are in group communication, communication theory and philosophy, and qualitative methods of inquiry. In this article, he refers to the "Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation" adopted by the International Assn. for Public Participation (IAP2).

3. Deterring Fake Public Participation

J.H. Snider, Ph.D., the president of iSolon.org, has written extensively about information policy and democratic reform. During Spring Semester 2008, he was a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government‘s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. From 2001 to 2007, he was a Markle Fellow, Senior Research Fellow, and Research Director at the New America Foundation. From 1999 to 2000, he was an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow in Communications and Public Policy. He has served on many public bodies, including as an elected school board member in Burlington, Vermont. A draft version of this essay was submitted to the Obama Administration’s Open Government Brainstorm.

Some handy, standard OpenGov references:

4. President Obama's Memorandum on "Transparency and Open Government" (1/21/09)

5. White House's Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

6. White House's Open Government: A Progress Report to the American People (December 2009)

7. The IAP2's "Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation"

8. The "Core Principles for Public Engagement" from the NCDD (National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation)

================================
Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/99kU1Q

OpenGovRadio 2/23/10: How to Measure Success in OpenGov

2010-02-23T13:29:00.002-05:00

Here's what we'll be talking about on today's show (2-3pm ET, Tuesday, February 23th) on OpenGovRadio. We invite you to call in with your comments and questions (917-388-4210).

Under the President's Open Government Inititiative, federal agencies have been told to become more "Transparent, Participatory, and Collaborative". Howcver, the White House's Open Government Directive has NOT made it clear (i.e., transparent) to federal agencies just how their efforts in those three areas of OpenGov are going to measured and judged.

And recent remarks from the White House are unclear as to when or how official guidance will be forthcoming, even as federal agencies wrestle with writing their OpenGov Plans (due April 7th) :

1. OSTP Blog (2/9/10): Evolving the Open Government Dashboard with You (excerpt below) :

As such, the Open Government Working Group is preparing a set of "stretch criteria" to help evaluate the plans and celebrate those agencies that exceed the minimal requirements of the Directive to reflect the President's vision of openness and accountability as articulated in the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government. We are eager to seek your input in this process, so keep an eye out for opportunities to weigh in over the next two weeks.

After agencies have successfully delivered on the demanding deadlines set out for the first 120 days, Version 2.0 of the Dashboard can deploy a more holistic set of metrics, informed by agency Plans. Identifying the right set of metrics will help steer agencies toward high-impact efforts in the years to come.

Dave Lewan of ForeSeeResults will be on the show today to explain how his company is using standard tools to measure the levels of Transparency, Participation, and Collaboration with citizens at federal agency websites, and how that approach can work elsewhere.

2. The Inaugural ForeSee Results’ E-Government Transparency Index (2/16/10)

3. Feb. 18th Webinar (39 minutes; with Q&A) on the E-Government Transparency Index

Also, we'll discuss a keyword search of "measur" (leave off the "e") on these documents:

4. Open Government Directive (12/8/09)

5. OPEN GOVERNMENT: A Progress Report to the American People (December 2009)

Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/9JKbQn

OpenGovRadio 2/16/10: Citizen Input on OpenGov Plans: After the First 10 days

2010-02-16T12:19:00.002-05:00

Here's what we'll be talking about on today's show (2-3pm EST, Tuesday, February 16th) on OpenGovRadio. We invite you to call in with your comments and questions (917-388-4210).

For the past 10 days, citizen have been providing Ideas, Votes, and Comments about how to improve Transparency, Participation and Collaboration with federal agencies.

What do YOU think of this "online engagement"? Is there an Idea that you (or someone else) posted that you would like people to vote for? Tell us about it on OpenGovRadio.

We will take calls from listeners about their experiences, but first we will discuss Tim Bonnemann's coverage of this topic at his blog at Intellitics.com, as well as the new dynamic tracking graphic at http://www.opengovtracker.com/, created by NASA's Robbie Schingler and Jessy Cowan-Sharp.

And, you can also follow (or join) their GovLoop conversation, "Monitoring and Continuous Evaluation of OpenGov forums" (registration required, but you do NOT have to be a government employee).

Short URL for this post:
http://bit.ly/cF5rga

OpenGovRadio 2/9/10: OGD Workshop on Feb. 17th and the OGD Feb. 6th Deliverables

2010-02-09T13:45:00.002-05:00

Here are the links that we will be discussing on today's OpenGovRadio program. We invite you to call in with your comments and questions.

The OpenGov Playbook
http://www.opengovplaybook.org/

February Open Government Directive Workshop (#3 in the Series):
http://opengovdirective.pbworks.com/February-Open-Government-Directive-Workshop

How to RSVP for the OGD Workshop #3:
http://www.govloop.com/group/opengovplaybook/forum/topics/the-open-government-directive-1

Tim ("Intellitics") Bonnemann's blog-post about Federal agencies' "citizen engagement tool":
http://www.intellitics.com/blog/2010/02/09/share-your-opengov-forum-tracking-data-on-govloop/

The White House/OMB's Open Government Dashboard:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around

Government Agencies listening to Citizens (using ForeSeeResults):
http://www.foreseeresults.com/CsGovernment.html

Discussed, but added after the show:

CDC eHealth Metrics Dashboard:
http://www.cdc.gov/metrics

White House blog (2/9/10) - Evolving the Open Government Dashboard with You:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/09/evolving-open-government-dashboard-with-you

Today's Guests and Callers:

Chris Jones, SourcePOV.com
Bernie Lubran, ForeSeeResults.com
Andy Krzmarzick, GovLoop.com
Bev Godwin, GSA.gov

Short URL for this posting:
http://bit.ly/crCIG4

OpenGovRadio Today (2/2/10): "Engagement-Lite" and the OpenGov Dashboard

2010-02-02T02:44:00.005-05:00

NOTE: To listen to OpenGovRadio, keep this page open, and then center-click here and push the Play-button (Tues. from 2:00 - 3:00 pm EST). To join the discussion, call (917) 388-4210.

=================================

Has OpenGov become so fixated on the "Transparency" aspect that it is ignoring "Public Engagement"?

Public engagement advocate Peter Levine writes that White House's "Open Government Initiative" has focused so much on "Transparency" that it has neglected the other two aspects: "Participation" and "Collaboration".

1. About Peter Levine and his work (do watch the short, non-music video: "Song of a Citizen")
http://www.peterlevine.ws/

2. Peter Levine's blog-post (1/27/10): "The Path Not Taken (so far): Civic Engagement for Reform"
http://www.peterlevine.ws/mt/archives/2010/01/the-path-not-ta.html

But just HOW do we measure the progress of federal agencies in "Transparency", "Participation", and "Collaboration"?

According to the Open Government Directive, the White House is scheduled to unveil the OpenGov "Dashboard" on Feb. 6th. But what exactly will its "gauges" measure? We'll discuss that with Katie Delahaye Paine, the author of "Measuring Public Relationships: The Data-Driven Communicator's Guide to Success"

3. KDPaine's homepage:
http://www.kdpaine.com/

4. KDPaine's blog-post (8/24/09): "How To Measure Transparency and Open Government"
http://kdpaine.blogs.com/themeasurementstandard/2009/08/how-to-measure-transparency-and-open-government.html

5. KDPaine: Developing a Dashboard for Measuring Public Relations
http://www.kdpaine.com/kdp/index.cfm/custom-research-consulting-services/dashboard-demo/

Other Websites to which we may refer, during this week's show:

A. President's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (1/21/09)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government/

B. Open Government Directive (issued by OMB, 12/8/09)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive

C. "The White House Open Government Dashboard: Seeking Your Input" (from OSTP blog, 12/16/09):
http://blog.ostp.gov/2009/12/16/the-white-house-open-government-dashboard-seeking-your-input/

D. The February Open Government Directive Workshop (3rd in the series, 2/17/10)
https://opengovdirective.pbworks.com/February-Open-Government-Directive-Workshop

E. The OpenGov Playbook (a wiki of resources about the Open Government Directive)
http://www.opengovplaybook.org/

F. Gov2.0 Camp New England (March 6th at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government)
http://gov20ne.eventbrite.com/

Short URL for this blog-post:
http://bit.ly/9nPGR3

OpenGovRadio (1/26/10): OGD Compliance - Questions & Comments

2010-01-22T16:27:00.009-05:00

-
-
I will be hosting Open Government Radio this next Tuesday, January 26th, from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. EST. You can listen to it live (or later) on your computer or PDA, and you can call-in with your questions or comments to (917) 388-4210.

Here's the show's description:

The first deadline for federal agencies to comply with the Open Government Directive was last Friday, January 22, 2010 (i.e., "high-value datasets"). How did they do? Let's talk about it.

Also, the next OGD deadline is February 6, 2010 for each agency to set up its own "OpenGov" webpage. Some have already done it. What do you think of them? What could make them better?

And, now, each federal agency has a "New Media Director". But what is that role, exactly, with respect to their agency's "OpenGov Planning Team"? And, who IS in charge? We'll be discussing these topics, along with the ones that YOU want to talk about.

PLEASE NOTE: It would be very helpful if -- before the show -- you use the Comment section, below, to raise a question or comment (along with web-addresses) that you would like discussed on the show.. That way, I can see, along with everyone else, the links to what you are talking about, along with a "heads-up" on the topic.

Tiny URL that points to this posting:
http://bit.ly/7VkR9U

Open Government Directive Issued Today

2009-12-08T10:19:00.002-05:00

For my Current Subscribers: Today, at 11:00 am, the White House will issue the Open Government Directive (see details below).

For New Visitors to this blog: If you want to stay informed about developments in the implementation of the new "Open Government Directive", then you have found the right place. Here are four (4) complementary ways to do that:

1. EMAIL: Primarily News (but some discussion): Join the email-group on "Open Government Directive". See the link in the right-hand column of this blog, or simply send a blank email to: opengovernmentdirective+subscribe@googlegroups.com

2. BLOG: Primarily Opinion (with reader comments): Subscribe to this blog. See the link in the right-hand column for subscribing by email, etc.

3. TWITTER (micro-blog): Get short "F.Y.I.s" by following me at http://twitter.com/transpartisan

3. RADIO: News and Opinion (invited guests with listeners call-in): "Open Government Radio" will now begin weekly shows with discussion on implementation of "open government" at all levels of government. Initial focus will be on the "Open Government Directive" of the U.S. federal government. Notices about upcoming shows will be posted to this blog, twitter, and the email-group (see above).

HERE is the announcement for Today's release of the Open Government Directive:

##############################
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 7, 2009

ADVISORY: Administration Officials to Launch Comprehensive Open Government Plan
with Webcast Open to All Americans

WASHINGTON – Tomorrow at 11:00am ET, U.S. Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra and U.S. Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra will launch the administration’s comprehensive Open Government Plan, furthering the President’s commitment to increasing transparency and accountability in Washington and ensuring greater access and information for the American people.

This announcement will be streamed live on whitehouse.gov, and will be followed by a web forum where individuals will be given an opportunity to ask questions and offer suggestions about the administration’s Open Government Plan.

WHO: U.S. CIO Vivek Kundra and U.S. CTO Aneesh Chopra
WHAT: Administration Launches Comprehensive Open Government Plan
WHERE: Watch it live and participate at http://www.whitehouse.gov/live
WHEN: Tuesday, December 8
11:00am ET
##############################

Short URL for this blog-post: http://bit.ly/6k3XGI

Open Government Intiative: Chapter Two of "Reinventing Government"

2009-11-01T20:40:00.008-05:00

Beth Noveck, who is in charge of the White House's "Open Government Initiative", spoke last Friday at the National Center for Digital Government at the University of Massachusetts. (Video of the event was accessible online, and will be available in "early November" at http://www.ncdg.org/ .)

As someone who was involved in the intitiative for "open-government" during the Clinton-Gore administration (aka, "Reinventing Government"), I was glad to finally hear Ms. Noveck acknowledge the existence of that previous effort. I was afraid that the people in charge of this new "openness" effort by the Obama administration had no clue that what they are attempting to do had been tried (with mixed results) before. The danger is that they fail to appreciate (and avoid) the mistakes made before.

Now, based on her remarks last Friday, I know that Ms. Noveck does "have a clue". Unfortunately, however, it seems that she is still under-informed about the fundamental parallel between the current "Open Government Intiative" (OGI) and the previous "Reinventing Government" (REGO) effort.

Based on her remarks (see partial transcript, below), Ms. Noveck believes that, compared to the REGO effort, the current OGI involves "a shift to a new set of values" that focus on "openness".
Excuse me? "New set of values"?

"So we created this agenda of institutional innovation, and that we define this agenda around a set of core values. So, in many ways, it builds on work that you [gesturing towards NCDG staff] were involved in, earlier, around 'Reinventing Government' and have written extensively about.

"But -- for a variety of reasons that I hope we can talk more about in the discussion -- I think we have come to a different place in today's approach to "Reinventing Government". It very much builds on that work, and we are able to do things, because of technology, that's different today that it was 15 years ago.

"But the technology has also enabled a shift to a new set of values really drive the conception of what it means to "reinvent government", what it means to innovate in terms of our public sector institutions. And these are tested, really, around "Openness" .. around this notion of creating ways that are more open, more collaborative, more participatory than we've ever seen before.

"Again, engendered by technology, because it makes it possible, but driven very much by a philosophical mindset that believes that Openness should be at the root of this change. And so, when we focus now on institutional innovation, and thinking about how we create a more open government, it's not simply for its own sake. It's not just innovation because it's a nice thing to have, or because it's frankly the more democratic way of doing things.

"It is integration of public sector institutions, by necessity, to make them more effective in the way that we work, more efficient in the way that we work, and that will improve the quality of people's lives."

Okay, perhaps the REGO effort did not have "Open" in its name, but "openness" was a core value of REGO. Every successful aspect of REGO was based on "openness", both with citizens and within government. Please show me one that was not. (For a few references in REGO: type in "openness" here.)

This just more evidence (at least, to me) about the low level of understanding, by many relative newcomers to the campaign "open-government", about the culture-war experience gained by their predecessors. Hopefully, with some openmindedness on the subject, that will change.

But that means some more humility that President Obama talks about when he says that, sometimes, the people in government don't know as much as they think they do. Even for a program on "openness".

==========================
Link to this posting --> http://bit.ly/3W7ZBc

First Step: Define "Transparent", "Participatory", "Collaborative"

2009-07-03T23:03:00.013-04:00

When I only post about once a month, so much has happened that I have to boil things down to the most fundamental and important information. But, of course, that's better for you (the reader).

So I will lead into it this way.

I know this has happened to all of us. You're having a great conversation with someone when, at some point, you both realize that you were both talking about something different. That's when you say, "Wait a minute, the Bob Smith that I know is a dentist!"

Of course, before that realization, you were having a really good conversation. You both thought that were talking (and agreeing) about the same thing. But you weren't. (How embarassing.)

And that's the biggest problem in discussing Open-Government: we're all agreeing that we need more "Transparency", "Participation" and "Collaboration" (TP&C) -- but we haven't really stopped to make sure that we all are talking about exactly the same things.

Such is the nature of "buzzwords". Their meanings are so fuzzy that anyone can throw them into a conversation without really having to explain to others just what exactly they're talking about. Why spoil a perfectly good conversation with specifics, right?

Unfortunately (at least, for heavy buzzword-users), there eventually comes a time when people begin to ask "Hey, what exactly do you mean by that?" And, for discussions surrounding the development of the White House's "Open Government Directive", that time is quickly approaching. And there are two things driving that.

The First Driver: The President wants to improve the "public engagement" by federal departments and agencies. He wants federal departments and agencies to become:

1. "More Transparent"
2. "More Participatory"
3. "More Collaborative"

Sounds good, but the federal depts. and agencies are beginning to wonder: How does he want us to do that? In essence, the President wants them to "jump", and they want to clear directions about: How high, When, Where, etc., etc.

And that is why the "Open Government Directive" is being drafted: to give federal depts. and agencies more specifics, so they can better understand just "what it is" that the President wants them to do.

And the reason that the federal depts. and agencies want clear direction is because they know that their performance will be graded by the President. Actually, they will be graded by the President's Chief Performance Officer, Jeffrey Zients, who indicates that "improving transparency is one of his priorities" and believes in "measuring the goals for the organization.

So, to be fair to federal depts. and agencies, the Open Government Directive will have to be very specific about the "TP&C" goals for "public engagement". It will explain how the White House (CPO) will measure "TP&C" performance towards those goals. But, to do that, the Open Government Directive (as issued by OMB, where the CPO works) first has to define just what "TP&C" are, and how they relate to "public engagement".

In other words, the White House will need to figure out "what it is" before it can figure out (and then tell others) how to measure it.

I have tried a number of times, during the "Open Government Dialogue", to point out the need to -- first -- come to some agreement on accepted definitions for "Transparency", "Participation", and "Collaboration" (TP&C) before having group-discussions about how to achieve them. However, almost all the people in those discussions are excited about this subject and, understandably, want to talk about Solutions (how to do it) without first understanding the Goals (what it is).

But that doesn't really matter now, because I know -- from my federal experience -- how federal directives are drafted and implemented. And the Open Government Directive will have TP&C definitions and criteria and metrics and measurable goals. Otherwise, the CPO will have no way to measure the "public engagement" performance of federal depts. and agencies.

The Second Driver: In the meantime, it is interesting to note that the Mainstream Media (MSM) is beginning to pick up on this "public engagement" thing. Some members of the White House press corps are now asking "Just what is a 'townhall meeting'?" The Press Secretary did not know, and then tried to side-step the question. See video here.

But, because the White House has already been presenting "townhall meetings" as a form of "public engagement", then it is only a matter of time before those same White House reporters begin asking "Okay then, so what do you mean by 'public engagement'?" And that, of course, will lead to "what is TP&C".

So the White House may be explaining what "TP&C" is, even before they offer up a draft of the Open Government Directive for public comment.

Things are going to get interesting. (Stay tuned by subscribing to my Feedburner email in right-hand column.)

========================
Tiny web-link to this posting:
http://tinyurl.com/nbn8ch

Please See My Four Ideas at White House.gov/OPEN (and then vote for them)

2009-05-26T14:40:00.019-04:00

Last week, I told you about the White House opening up its "Open Government Initiative" by creating a special website for the public to suggest ideas on how federal departments and agencies can be more "transparent, participatory, and collaborative". Visitors to the website can also vote and comment on the "brainstorming" ideas.

Full-disclosure: I want you to give a "thumbs-up" vote to my ideas (below) the White House website for "open government" -- before it closes down on Thursday. Update 5/27: The links (below) have been corrected.

Supposedly, the ideas with the most votes will "bubble up" and receive special consideration by the White House "Open-Gov" team that is headed up by Beth Noveck, Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government.

The main goal of this "brainstorming" session (along with two other phases that will be open to the public) is to answer the overarching question:

"How can we strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness by making government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative?"

PLEASE NOTE (and VOTE): This first "brainstorming" phase ends sometime Thursday, May 28th and, in order to vote, you will have to give then an email and create a password). As I write this, there are already 500 ideas, but here are four ideas (below) that I ask that you consider and VOTE for. (Yes, they are my ideas.)

1. "MyGov.gov" --> Customized to What Affects YOU

The government should be trying to engage YOU (not vice-versa). For example, an email-notice can reach out and engage you, but an obscure website does not. "MyGov.gov" would let you fill out a profile, so that you will get email-notices ONLY about those things that affect YOU. (This is how USAjobs.gov already works.)

Give that idea a "thumbs-up" here:http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2929-4049

===========================================

2. Make It Safe for Govt. Workers to Innovate to Save Money

I'm a former federal employee who worked at five different agencies, and I know from experience that the only way for to make it safe for government workers to talk about saving money with innovative ideas (or simply pointing out waste) is to have an online system that allows them to raise the idea BUT hides their true identity. (FYI: The existing Inspector-General system does NOT do this.)

Give that idea a "thumbs-up" here:http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2481-4049
==========================================

3. Give Citizens a Simple Checklist for Rating "Public Engagement"

Citizens should have a simple checklist that they can take when they attend a public meeting so that they can rate how "open" the meeting was (i.e., with respect to Transparency, Participation, and Collaboration).

This simple checklist could be the standard tool for citizens to provide feedback to government agencies about the quality of their public engagement activities. In fact, the requirement for federal department and agencies to "solicit public feedback" about their public engagement is mentioned three (3) times in President Obama's Memorandum on Transparent and Open Government. (BTW: The League of Women Voters has something similar to this.)

Give that idea a "thumbs-up" here:http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2789-4049
==========================================

4. Let's Be Clear on the Terminology about "Public Engagement"

We need to better define the terms that we are using in order to have a better discussion about how we achieve Open Government. For example: If a "town-hall meeting" can be a political speech followed by couple questions, then does that qualify as "public engagement" (or is it just a photo-op)?

If we all have different ideas about what is (and is not) "public engagement" or "transparency" or (insert buzzword here), then we will have a very hard time reaching consensus about how to go forward. (This, of course, is one lesson from "The Tower of Babel").

Give that idea a "thumbs-up" here:http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2693-4049

==========================================

And if you are still interested ...

PHASE TWO: On June 3rd, the White House will begin Phase Two of the "Open Government Iniatitive" in which there will be an online discussion to "dig deeper on the ideas and challenges identified during the Brainstorm phase." However, there is an ongoing (unofficial) discussion about the "Open Government Directive" that anyone can join by going to http://groups.google.com/group/opengovernmentdirective

===================================

TinyURL for this posting:
http://tinyurl.com/p4yueq

===================================

Update (6/3/09): I was on the radio! To listen to me interviewed last week about this blog-post on D.C.'s "FederalNewsRadio" (1500AM-WTOP), click here.

Public Commenting on the "Open Government Directive"

2009-05-20T16:24:00.006-04:00

According to a notice that will appear in the Federal Register on May 21 (see link, below), the White House is inviting members of the public "to participate in the process of developing recommendations via email or the White House website at www.whitehouse.gov/open offering comments, ideas, and proposals about possible initiatives and about how to increase openness and transparency in government."

Federal Register notice as it appears on May 21, 2009:
(Text) http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-12026.htm
(PDF) http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-12026.pdf

Note: The deadline for comments is June 19, 2009.

Once their website is open, I'd be interested to see your comments about it.

==========================
TinyURL for this posting:
http://tinyurl.com/qjpyyg

No Due-date for Open Govt. Directive

2009-05-01T00:00:00.007-04:00

Many "open-gov" reporters and bloggers have mistakenly said that the Open Government is due by this May 21. So, let me set things straight (so that YOU can be the smartest person at the next staff meeting on "open-gov"). Here it is:

The Presidential Memorandum on "Transparency and Open Government" does NOT require completion of the Open Government Directive (OGD) by May 21.

It only says that "recommendations" for the OGD be delivered by that date. The subsequent delivery of OGD, based on those recommendations, has no due-date in the President's Memorandum.

Of course, if the CTO (who was only recently hired) wants to rush the process faster than necessary (or prudent), then he can certainly do so.

That would not be surprising because, after all, D.C. is all about political expediency -- people are rarely given enough time to do it right the first time, but always given time to go back and fix it again and again.

And, if YOU know something that we don't know, then please share it with us here.

Get Ready to Wiki-collaborate

2009-02-25T21:41:00.011-05:00

"Collaboration-by-wiki" is coming to open-government ... soon.

If you're interested in government transparency, but have been putting off learning how to use all these new "Web 2.0" tools (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.), then NOW is the time to start learning how to use a "wiki" to collaborate.

Because, in the very near future, it looks like you may have the opportunity to make edits to the draft federal report of recommendations for "Transparency and Open Government" that Pres. Obama wants delivered to the White House within 120 days (i.e., by May 21st), which will then be the basis for creating the "Open Government Directive" (OGoD).

According to the most recent issue of DotGovBuzz (a federal newsletter from the General Services Administration):

"The White House is using OMB's MAX wiki to solicit innovative ideas, proposals and brainstorming about how government can tackle the topics of transparency, public participation and collaboration, until March 6. Currently MAX is only open those with a dot gov email address, but plans are to create another website open to the public." [my emphasis added]

Of course, all of this is being developed on the fly, so whatever "plans" the White House have right now are still evolving. But, at this point in time, it looks like there will be some type of online opportunity for the public to review the draft recommendations and provide feedback.

And that feedback platform may be nothing more than the "thumbs-up/thumbs-down" option offered for issues on Change.gov during the Presidential transition. BUT, they might set up a "public-facing wiki" similar to the one being used now for federal employees to brainstorm and collaborate on recommendations for the report.

And, if it's true that those federal employees only have until March 6 to contribute via the "MAX-wiki", then many of them may spend most of the next 8 days on a learning-curve of how to "collaborate-by-wiki". So, we should not be surprised if the timeframe for the public's feedback is similarly short.

And that is why it is important for you to start getting up to speed on how a wiki works. But I'm no expert myself, so I'm inviting your suggestions on the best web-tutorials, etc. for learning how to "collaborate-by-wiki".

If you want me to keep you up-to-date on developments regarding this topic, please be sure to Subscribe-by-email or RSS (in the right-hand column of this blog). And, if you have information that you want to share, please provide a comment below, or email me confidentially.

[There's a technical glitch for Comments. Simply click on "Links to this Post" (below) to post your comment.]

Wiki-collaboration on Obama's "Open Government Directive"

2009-02-05T15:36:00.013-05:00

Okay, I've been thinking about this for awhile, and so here's my idea.

As you may already know, President Obama, on his first full day in office (1/21/09) issued a "Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government" in which he says this:

"I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum."

So that means that, between now and May 21st, some type of task force will be drafting up a list of suggestions about how the federal agencies of the U.S. government can be more transparent, participatory, and collaborative with the public.

And (this is not a wild guess) one thing that it will probably say is that "a great tool for collaborating with the public would be to use wikis".

So, if I'm a federal "wiki-evangelist" and I'm drafting a policy document (i.e., the Open Government Directive) that talks about how great it would be to use wikis for collaborating with the public, then shouldn't I put my final draft out on a wiki so that it can be improved by others, before I send it to the White House for signature?

Keep in mind that I'm not advocating some kind of absolute transparency where we put web-cams on the heads of the task force that drafts the Directive, but how about a 30-day public review and suggestion period (e.g., using a wiki) prior to its finalization for signature by the President?

THAT, more than anything else, would show citizens, including those that are federal employees, that the new leadership is willing to "walk the talk" or, in other words, "BE the Change!"

If you are interested in my updates on "wiki-collaboration" news with respect to development of the Open Government Directive, then please note that you can also stay abreast of this blog when you "subscribe-by-email" (see box, right-hand column).

P.S. This "walk the talk" suggestion is also made the National Academy for Public Administration (NAPA) in its recent white-paper "Enabling Collaboration: Three Priorities for the New Administration" (see page 20 of 40: "Implementing a culture of collaboration will be a task primarily of leadership by example.").

==============

UPDATE (2/20/09): I submitted this suggestion at the Sunlight Foundation's new "Our Open Government List" where you can vote for the best ideas for the "Open Gov't. Directive" (OGoD). You can vote for mine at http://feedback.sunlightfoundation.com/oogl/24/

P.S. As a former fed, I still like acronyms. So ... What do federal executives say when they're told to use social-media and wikis to achieve "open-government"? ---> "OGoD!" (My invention, thank you.)

Whistleblowing as One Aspect of Transparency

2009-01-22T15:55:00.003-05:00

A lot has happened since my last posting (e.g., Obama is our new president), so I wanted any new visitors to know that I will be focusing on the bigger picture, now, with respect to "transparency" in government.

Even though "whistleblowing" is an element of government transparency, there is much afoot on a much larger scale and, so, that larger aspect needs my, and all of your, attention.

In a nutshell, President Obama has directed, in a memorandum signed on his first full day of work, that all parts of the executive branch will be more transparent in order for citizens to better be involved in how to make their government "work better and cost less".

From Steve Clift's "Democracy Online" blog:
http://www.dowire.org/notes/?p=451

Having worked in Washington, D.C. for 25 years, I see a danger that the good intentions of the Obama administration might be subverted by those who are invested in the status quo, often posing as "new converts".

That is why they need help, from kindred souls on the outside, in shaping a system of "citizen involvement" that can withstand the efforts of those who will try to bend it to their own special interests.

Ethical Govt. as a Campaign Issue

2008-09-17T20:56:00.012-04:00

As I mentioned in my first posting, I would like the presidential candidates to tell us how they might "reform/change" government by answering the following question:

"Will you make it safe for government workers to point out
waste, fraud or abuse, without the fear of losing their jobs?"

So I have an idea on how to get the presidential candidates to start talking about this, and I would like to know what you think.

I'll give you the web-links below, but try to follow me here for a minute.

I was browsing around the EthicsPoint website and found a page about how any federal agency can simply "buy" their services for operating a "whistleblower hotline" (e.g., via a website) just as if they were buying office furniture or copy-paper (i.e., without a bidding process).

[BTW: That means that any federal agency can allow whistleblowing tomorrow without an Act of Congress (i.e., trying to improve the failed Whistleblower Protection Act).]

BUT then I noticed, in the left-hand column, a link to the "Ethics & Compliance Officers (ECOA) National Conference" next week in Orlando, FL, which lead to me to their conference agenda, with sessions like this:

"Dangerous Silence: What Employees Won't Tell You, Why, and
What You Can Do about It"

"Optimizing Corporate Ethics and Compliance
Programs in the Federal Government"

So it appears that the people attending this conference (i.e., ethics and compliance officers) are the very people most qualified to judge whether a candidate actually "gets it", or if he is just spouting empty rhetoric.

Now I wouldn't expect the candidates to rearrange their schedules to attend the ECOA conference, and it still might be too much to even arrange a teleconference. So I'm thinking that maybe the ECOA could ask both campaigns to send a short (5-minute max.) video of each ticket's candidate(s) responding this simple, straightforward question, so that the ECOA conference attendees can then "confer" about it.

"Will you make it safe for government workers to point out
waste, fraud or abuse, without the fear of losing their jobs?"

In the interest of fairness, the videos could be "embargoed" until shown to the ECOA conferees, so that no candidate could tailor their his/her remarks based on the others'. And, after the viewing, the videos could be posted on YouTube for everyone else to see, and the media could interview conferees to get their assessment of the candidate's statements, while drawing a LOT of publicity to the ECOA mission and its members.

So what do you think? Got an idea of your own?

Please share your thoughts here, or contact me directly and, in the meantime, I'll go see if ECOA (or some other similar group) is interested in picking up on this.

--- SB

1. Any federal agency can buy a "whistleblower hotline/website" right now:
http://info.ethicspoint.com/markets/government/

2. ECOA National Conference agenda (and link to ECOA homepage):
http://www.theecoa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Events/AnnualConference/AC_Agenda.htm

My first post: Why this blog?

2008-09-13T18:02:00.004-04:00

[Even though I've been online for 20 years, this is my first blog. Any suggestions for tweaking the site are very welcome.]

As I write this, there are only about 7 weeks left in the U.S. presidential campaign, and it appears that both McCain and Obama are going to be falling all over themselves trying to convince voters that they are the better candidate for "change" and "reform".

As a former federal employee, I was heavily involved in the 1990's in making the U.S. government "work better and cost less" under Vice-President Al Gore's National Performance (a.k.a. "reinventing government"), so this current opportunity to get the future President (whoever that may be) to talk, in more detail, about how he plans to change the "culture of Washington" is, for people like me, a very exciting time.

And, if YOU feel the same way, then you probably have noticed the increase in "good government" buzzwords coming out of recent speeches from the candidates. Buzzwords like these:

"transparency" -- "accountability" -- "reform" -- "culture change" -- and even "whistleblower" (to describe Palin)

By creating this blog, I hope we can all share any relevant news or information that may provide some insight to what these "changers" and "mavericks" have in mind.

And, because I have personal experience as a former federal auditor about "blowing the whistle" on government waste, I am especially interested in how they plan to make it safe for government workers to point out government waste without fearing for their jobs.

So here it is, the simple question that the "candidates-for-change" need to answer (and that I hope this blog will prompt):
"Will you make it safe for government workers to point out waste, fraud or abuse, without the fear of losing their jobs?"

That is the fundamental question. Any candidate that can answer that question is one that also knows how to create "transparency and accountability".

Let's all find out (before the election).