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

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)

OpenGov at Two Years: Ignorance is Bliss?

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):

1. 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 7/28/10: A Tour of "Federal Register 2.0"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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