Leadership and oversight at the highest levels of the federal government will be necessary for the Open Government Directive to succeed. The President’s Management Council, which is made up of the Deputy Secretaries of all major agencies, should oversee the implementation of the directive to ensure that the entire federal government is working together to manage the implementation of the directive.
All agencies should provide regular public reports on their progress towards implementing the Open Government Directive. Existing performance measurement and scorecard systems should be modified to include transparency, participation and collaboration criteria and metrics.
Comments (12)
This is a terrible idea. More useless paperwork to prove to some bureaucrat that they've published something PUBLICLY. Why not let the transparency speak for itself?
This is a superb idea, because only regular reporting and accountability ensures the organs of government stay on track in accordance with the President's vision. Working in government myself, I have seen the tremendous inertia and reluctance to change of any kind. Overlapping rules and regulations, as well as confusing chains of command and responsibility have to be identified and fixed - one this process begins and leaders are made to PUBLICLY report and be held accountable for discrepancies in their reports, an irresistable momentum will build.
I like the idea of accountability. I dislike the idea of accountability being in the form of a "report." At best, states will shove the project onto the desk of someone who is already overworked and underpaid. At worst a report will be twisted glorification of the efforts of state government regardless of politics, corruption or other inherent problems.
There must be a better way to achieve accountability. Perhaps citizens of each state should be able to vote on-line in regards to how they perceive their governments level of transparency. I'd be interested in hearing about alternatives to "reports".
"Leadership and oversight at the highest levels" sounds like surrendering more public decisions to the political class, which has proven incapable of depoliticizing these issues. Open Government Directive means putting the Washington pols in the position of serving the needs of the public, not vice-versa.
Politicians ignore the voice of open government at their own peril on election day.
Perhaps I misinterpreted this post, if it means that politicians must be held accountable to the OGD. But I still think transparency and elections do this best. We have too many watchdogs in our public institutions when we should be empowering checks and balances through participation.
Accountability is a critical aspect of these efforts, and can be achieved through a variety of mechanisms. Written reports are a tool familiar to agency managers, and can provide in-depth understanding of the agency's performance on participation, collaboration and transparency. Other types of performance measurement and scorecard systems should also be used, and, as said above, "be modified to include transparency, participation and collaboration criteria and metrics."
The other important aspect of this recommendation is a commitment by government leaders, in word and action, to the OGD. Leadership can help set a new tone and ensure expectations are met about reaching these goals of open government.
Have all of the government officials turned in their TPS reports? This is a horrible idea and won't improve anything. They should and will follow by example.
Dear fellow "Idea" brainstormers and commentors:
For news and moderated discussion (public, but unofficial) about the
continuing development and implementation of the "Open Government
Directive", you are invited to either:
1. send mailto:opengovernmentdirective+subscribe@googlegroups.com
2. visit http://groups.google.com/group/opengovernmentdirective
NOTE: Because I am posting this to the Comment section of some
(but not all) Ideas, you may see this message more than once.
I apologize for that.
vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com
When private citizens or corporations "fail" to provide information required by law, there are penalties that can and are imposed for such violations.
Having watched local, state AND federal officials routinely disregard state open-records or federal FOIA requests - either by substantive delay or flat-out refusal to disclose - it seems apparent that there must be personal penalties mandated for such violations, to be irrevocably imposed under clearcut criteria.
Anything less leaves recalcitrant bureaucrats free to ignore open-government mandates with impunity.
I agree with nstie
Having the foxes evaluate how well they're guarding the henhouse isn't the brightest of ideas.
kenyan. im american don't have to talk to any foreign. uh its th einternet.