Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm
Address Legal Barriers That Impede Participation and Collaboration
Certain laws and regulations, as well as the manner in which certain agencies interpret these laws and regulations, affect the ability of agencies to engage and collaborate with the public. Among these laws and regulations are the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and the Anti-Pass-The-Hat Provision (in the Treasury Appropriations Bill). In addition, some individual agencies say their internal interpretation of government-wide laws may place constraints on better citizen participation (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), FACA, etc.)

The following recommendations were developed by a group of federal agency managers and staff at a conference on March 30-31 that was facilitated by AmericaSpeaks, Demos, Everyday Democracy and Harvard's Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation.

Conduct a review of each department and agency to update program regulations and rules in accordance with applicable legal authorities and societal needs. Departments and agencies will also determine whether they impose explicit or implicit restrictions or impediments to greater citizen involvement in program, agency, or cross-agency efforts. Efforts might include planning, agenda setting, program analysis, program or service design, implementation, examining efficient and effective alternatives, and evaluation.

Use the review to produce an inventory of (1) creative examples of models or alternatives and (2) possible barriers. Share this information among agencies and the public. The inventory will be organized into the following categories (for both model examples and barriers) imposed by: (1) government-wide laws or regulations; (2) policies administered by other agencies; (3) agency or program-specific laws or regulations; and (4) administratively by the department, agency, or program. Separately identify implicit barriers, such as long review cycles for administrative approvals, multiple approvals for action, inconsistent legal interpretations over time, etc.

Post the inventory on the department or agency’s website for public review and comment for an explicit number of days. Complete the review and resulting inventory in an explicit number of days from the signing of this directive. Share the inventory with the entity overseeing the implementation of the Open Government Directive, which will post this inventory, along with other agency inventories, on a website as a resource for other agencies.

Based on the review described above, department and agency heads will develop plans to improve their citizen participation efforts. These plans should address the administrative barriers identified, best practices identified, and the use of new technologies. The department or agency may delegate implementation action to a designated champion, office, or task force designated for this purpose. That entity will report on progress on a semi-annual basis.

In the case of government-wide laws or regulations, or requirements of other agencies (e.g. FACA, FOIA, Paperwork Reduction Act), these shall be referred to the entity overseeing the implementation of the Open Government Directive for resolution.

In the case of FACA, some agencies have found that their legal counsels’ interpretations of the statute are a barrier to participation and collaboration efforts. The White House Counsel should set parameters around FACA’s interpretation in order to support greater collaboration and participation. The White House Counsel should provide trainings for legal counsels in the agencies on the interpretation of government-wide laws or regulations that impact participation and collaboration.

In the case where government-wide laws or regulations are being interpreted differently by different agencies, the entity overseeing the implementation of the Open Government Directive will work with agencies to develop an agreed upon interpretation that will increase opportunities for citizen participation.

Why Is This Idea Important?

Small changes in interpretation of laws and regulations could make a significant difference in the ability of government agencies to pursue participatory and collaborative strategies. We need to remove barriers so that agency champions of participation can innovate.
Comments
mwalsh 8 months ago
Excellent recommendations! I would add:

1. Subject Assistance (Grants & Cooperative Agreements) policy initiatives to the Administrative Procedures Act to assure public rule-making standards apply to a huge amount of taxpayer money.
2. Re-vamp the Federal Register. Its structure is a hold-over from the 19th century. Its difficult to decipher, time consuming to digest and epitomizes the challenges the public faces in understanding the government.
Nicholas Dewar 8 months ago
Joe, You're right-on. Which gov agencies do you believe have particularly restrictive regs re public involvement in NEPA?
jgastil 8 months ago
The legal questions here are above my pay grade, but I'm sure a lot of good could be done here at little cost. And surely there'd be an easy bipartisan vote at the end of the road, should these changes require legislation.
bbrandon 8 months ago
Adopt the Suggestions of the ABA Committee

This past fall the ABA Committee on the Status and Future of E-Rulemaking released a comprehensive report on this topic. A link to the report can be found at http://ceri.law.cornell.edu/erm-comm.php. I would ask to incorporate it by reference in these comments.

This report outlines the minimum steps that need to be taken to make Regulations.gov an effective site. In addition, it outlines promising steps for the future.

Regulations.gov is an important initiative that has been implemented well under difficult circumstances. But much work needs to be done to improve the governance, funding, architecture, public participation tools and search capabilities on this site. Lastly, flexibility must be built into the system to encourage innovation and take advantage of the exciting new developments in Internet technology.
sally.canzoneri 8 months ago
I agree with the overall thrust of this post, but I am confused by the idea of FACA acting as a barrier to participation.

FACA requires that meetings of Federal Advisory Committees be public which, if anything, should add transparency to government.

Many people were not happy to have Dick Cheney meeting privately with an energy advisory group, while most of us did not know what was said and how much influence the group had on the Government's energy policy. Those meetings were probably held privately in violation of FACA, not because of it.
Related Topics/Ideas
Title




























Activity Chart
Controversy Meter