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
.

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 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