The Open Government Dialogue focuses on "governmentwide" policy recommendations. But does this mean only "Federal governmentwide" or does it really mean "governmentwide"? I suggest that it should really mean "governmentwide."
There are more than 40,000 government units in the U.S. in addition to the Federal government. Although the Constitutional principle of Federalism suggests a separation of powers between the Federal and local layers of government, in fact the Federal government has a huge impact on the transparency, participation, and collaboration of local government.
On government transparency, for example, Recovery.gov requires standardized disclosure of local government contracts, and the Department of Education's No Child Left Behind requires standardized disclosure of local school system student assessment data.
On public participation, similarly, the Federal government mandates that some education technology grants must be based on recommendations from a local committee that includes citizens; and that grants of Public, Education, and Government (PEG) Access funds be based on public feedback from at least two advertised public hearings.
More generally, in laws relating to state and local government use of Federal funds, the Federal government often includes provisions implementing the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration already embedded in Federal governmentwide good government legislation such as the Administrative Procedures Act. To have done otherwise would have resulted in an unaccountable and therefore irresponsible use of Federal resources.
In short, I suggest that any "governmentwide" minimum guidelines for transparency, participation, and collaboration include state and local governments--or parts thereof--that receive Federal funds.
--J.H. Snider, President
iSolon.org
P.S. See my article, "Democratize School Budget Data," Education Week, May 20, 2009 for an example of the type of beneficial role the Federal government could have in encouraging local transparency and public participation.
Comments (1)
When I was a child, and I acted like a spoiled 5 year old and I whined and stamped my feet and DEMANDED attention because I didn’t get my way…my parents sent me to my room. And I’d holler and wail and stamp my feet until I realized that I would not be invited back to participate with the adults and have my voice heard until I changed my behavior and quit acting like an ass.
I could stamp my feet all I wanted, and nobody cared…because I was acting like a rotten little creep and no one wanted me around. When I got tired of being excluded from adult conversation I told my parents I was sorry and that I was ready to be a part of the discussion again.
We would talk and I would express my needs and they would listen. Sometimes I would get the things I’d ask for and sometimes they would explain to me why I wasn’t going to get things the way I wanted them, but they would be respectful and consider my wants.
It’s time for “birther” conservatives to be sent to their room and ignored. To be left out of the conversation by the adults until they are willing to quit making demands and screaming and stomping their feet…to be sent to their rooms until they are willing to work WITH their family members to make a pleasant, peaceful and respectful home for all of us…instead of dominating the environment with selfish, childish pettiness.