Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm
Update Administrative Law to Authorize and Encourage Public Deliberation.
We need to revise the U.S. Code and Administrative Procedure Act to empower agencies to make greater use of collaborative governance, including dialogue, deliberation, and deliberative democracy, and also to collaborate with all levels of governance (federal, state, regional, and local), private, and nonprofit sectors.

Why Is This Idea Important?

The U.S. Code does not clearly empower agencies to make broad use of collaborative governance. While it authorizes agencies to use dispute resolution and stakeholder processes such as negotiated rulemaking, it is silent on definitions of public participation and does not clearly authorize both face-to-face and online deliberative methods of public involvement. A new Public Involvement Act could both empower and encourage agencies to make broader use of innovative processes.
Comments
bbrandon 8 months ago
Opening up the APA is a dangerous concept for good government. Rulemaking in particular is already ossified by too many hurdles that can take an agency 4 years to promulgate a rule. [see recent GAO report on rulemaking.] I think President Obama would more wisely use his administrative powers in this area rather than seek a legislative solution.
rgunn 8 months ago
I completely agree with the comment from B Brandon. We should also all support re-funding ACUS (the Administrative Conference of the United States, a government advisory body that deals with regulatory issues) to help sort things out.
Linda Blong 8 months ago
I certainly am not in favor of bogging down the rulemaking process, but that does not appear to me to be what is being suggested here. I don't see an either/or in relation to administrative action and legislation. I think we would do well to further explore the implications of the revisions that Lisa is suggestion and how this may support administrative action.
rgunn 8 months ago
It is the phrase "revise the U.S. Code and Administrative Procedure Act" (APA)that is a problem. Revisions to the Act would have to be done by Congress, and could become very political. The revisions suggested initially might or might not be what came out. So before thinking about revisions, it is important to begin by asking what changes can be made in procedures to achieve the kind of results Lisa is seeking, without revising the law. (ACUS could help, so it is important.) The APA is rather short and basic - the most common sort of rulemaking is covered in less than a page (read it at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000553----000-.html). A lot of what happens in rulemaking has been spelled out later, in other ways, including agency procedures.
richard 8 months ago
Both the APA and Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)need a review. As currently interpreted by many agencies it makes it difficult to implement a collaborative governance model. Both are frequently used a reasons not to collaborate. It may not take a revision of the law but certainly an in depth analysis to determine if barriers to collaboration are created by the law and which are regulatory, policy or agency culture. The Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution did a FACA review with recommendations a few years ago that would be a good starting place. The same can be done for APA. This should not be difficult and if legislative changes are needed it gives congress a starting place. If we are serious about collaborative governance these issues must be addressed.
Activity Chart
Controversy Meter