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)

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

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?

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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?

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?

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