Creating a more open government will require most federal agencies to fundamentally shift how they interact with the public. Within 180 days, agencies should produce a plan to integrate public involvement and collaboration into all relevant systems, including:
• Hiring, recruiting and promotion
• Performance agreements and appraisal
• Award and incentive systems
• Rotations and special assignments
• Program assessment and audits
• Training and leadership development programs
• Communications strategies
• Strategic planning and budget processes
Every agency should designate a senior level leader to serve as an open government champion. The champion will review agency operations and identify areas to improve public participation, collaboration and transparency activities. The agency champion will serve an on interagency working group to share best practices across agencies.
Comments (8)
This ideas needs to be integrated with the existing ADR initiatives that have been mandated for public agencies. While ADR does not necessarily equate to public involvement, it certainly is consistent with negotiated rulemaking and other forms of multi-stakeholder dialogue that have been undertaken in the form of Federal Advisory Committees.
Let me see if I can re-state this since it isn't as clear as you may believe.
You want each federal agency and department to create an Open Government plan within 180 days? This plan should address how the federal agency or department will involve the public in each of the areas it is involved in?
My question is whether this is asking to much and assuming a lot.
What exactly would you propose as the role of the public in hiring, recruiting and promoting government employees? Wouldn't this politicize the civil service and isn't this exactly what the Civil Service reforms had to address.
If we are proposing that the public should be involved in defining the hiring process then I have some reservations but if you are proposing that they should be involved in the actual hiring, recruiting and promoting of employees I have serious reservations.
If it is just drafting the guides, documents, and forms necessary for hiring, recruiting and promoting I'm fine with that as long as those requirements don't become political as a result because that is what the civil reform acts had to overcome.
The public shouldn't be involved in hiring. Rather hiring and training should be done in the context of wanting people in the federal government who have skills with regard to participation and collaboration. Good public engagement requires skill sets that many federal staff do not have. This should change.
This effort should build upon existing networks among federal agencies such as the work led by OJJDP to build a network of federal managers supporting Comprehensive Community Initiatives and a toolkit for those managers. http://www.juvenilecouncil.gov/cci2/index.asp
The ADR network has Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group. http://www.adr.gov/
The Environmental Justice community has its own interagency working group. http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/environmentaljustice/interagency/index.html
Finally, it is important for this Open Government Initiative to lift up successful collaborative efforts at the federal level that spawn greater collaboration at the state and local level. A good example is the United We Ride Initiative. According to the website, "United We Ride is an interagency Federal national initiative that supports States and their localities in developing coordinated human service delivery systems. In addition to State coordination grants, United We Ride provides State and local agencies a transportation-coordination and planning self-assessment tool, help along the way, technical assistance, and other resources to help their communities succeed." Efforts like these, driven by an Executive Order, can foster significant sustained collaborative efforts over time.
I like the emphasis on integration; there are too many separate, disconnected projects in participation dotting the landscape. There could be great efficiencies--and better programs on average--if we integrated many of these offices and projects.
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
I would recommend that the senior level leader be specifically at the SES level, be a full time position with a project budget and NOT be located in the Human Resources section of the agency. The ADR network established by executive order ended up with collateral duty appointed leads, most of whom were in HR or EEOC, without sufficient standing in their departments or agencies.
The open government agency champions should be positioned to link with or convene senior staff in the program/policy, budget,and legal sections, with standing to influence and promote internal agency dialogue and culture change within the departments and agencies.
Also, the Office of Personnel Management can take a stronger lead in efficiently (and collaboratively) issuing advice/guidance to agencies on the collaborative skill set and performance measures needed to hire, recruit, and reward staff.
It's potentially problematic, esecially the part about incentive systems. Often, less noticed incentives such as social/ moral incentives are steamrolled by economic ones. If you paid people $3 to donate blood, their primary reason (because it's the right thing to do would be replaced by the money, which wouldn't be enough for people to want to donate, so donations plummet. This principle is in Freakonomics.