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 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 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 5/4/10: "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 4/13/10: Review of OpenGov Plans - Version 1.0

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

"Review of OpenGov Plans - Version 1.0"

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

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

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


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


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

Links for following the discussion:

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

2.  GovLoop's Chart of the OpenGov Plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussed, but added after the show:

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

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

Today's Guests and Callers:

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

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

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

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

So I will lead into it this way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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