Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Stephen Buckley

User Profile Image Stephen Buckley
Member since : May-21-2009 (Verified)
4 Ideas, 59 Comments, 57 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

When you create an employment profile at USAjobs.gov, an email-alert will be sent to you when it finds a federal job vacancy that matches your profile. You don't do the job searching -- the job vacancy "finds" you.

But we should create a broader system -- "MyGov.gov" -- that looks over ALL those government proposals (e.g., policies, programs, projects) that match what YOU indicate would be of interest to YOU. And when there's a match, you get an email about it. For example:

Is a new highway exit being proposed near you? --> MyGov.gov alerts you about the public hearings.

Does someone want a wind-turbine close by? --> MyGov.gov tells you about the permit application.

A regulation proposed that would affect your business? --> MyGov.gov sends you the public notice.

Every one of us has special interests in certain things that our government does (or might do). Therefore, we need to set up a modern notification system ("MyGov.gov") that sends an email-message when YOUR special interests might be affected by a specific government proposal.

Actually, there IS a "notification system" that's been around for decades. It's called the "Federal Register", but it does a poor job of notifying the average citizen about public proposals and plans of the U.S. government.

Every week, the Federal Register publishes hundreds of public notices from federal departments and agencies asking the public (that means you) to give them feedback on their proposals for doing their govt. work. But even though the Federal Register is now online, it can takes hours every day to determine if any of it might affect you.

And that is why we need "MyGov.gov" -- the customized government portal to YOU.

respectfully,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com

P.S. "MyGov.gov" would be similar to the "MyRegulations" concept being considered under Regulations.gov (but it would be limited to *regulations*, not actual projects like highways, bridges, wind-turbines, etc.).
When I attend a meeting that is supposed to involve some type of "public engagement", it would be nice to have a simple checklist that I could use to rate whether that meeting really was Transparent, Participatory, and Collaborative.

This simple checklist could be the standard tool for citizens to provide feedback to government agencies about the quality of their public engagement activities. In fact, the requirement for federal department and agencies to "solicit public feedback" about their public engagement is mentioned three (3) times in President Obama's Memorandum on Transparent and Open Government.

The checklist could contain simple "Yes/No" questions, along these lines:

"Was it Transparent?"

--> At some public meetings, it is not clear what is being discussed. Even if the meeting's agenda is available, the actual proposal or other documents being discussed are not made available to the public.
[Transparent? Check "No".]

"Was it Participatory?"

--> At some public meetings, members of the public are allowed to attend, but are not given an opportunity to ask questions and comment on the proposal being discussed.
[Participatory? Check "No".]

"Was it Collaborative?"

--> Even when a public meeting allows for public *feedback* on a proposal, it may have skipped over the step for public *input* could have shaped the proposal differently.
[Collaborative? Check "No".]

Of course, different citizens can have different judgements about the very same meeting. But, just like a "customer survey", a review of the collected checklists should provide some objective evidence about the quality of public engagement.

ALSO, this standard checklist should be developed and promoted by government agencies - now - in order to gauge their current effort *before* they attempt improvements. Otherwise, they won't know - later on - if they are doing any better. (You know: it's like weighing yourself *before* the diet.)

[NOTE: The League of Women Voters (LWV) have some local chapters with an "Observer Corps" that use checklists to rate public meetings. However, different chapters have developed different formats. The LWV's experience would be helpful in creating a federal checklist for "citizen observers".]
We need to better define the terms that we are using in order to have a better discussion about how we achieve Open Government.

If we all have different ideas about what is (and is not) "public engagement" or "transparency" or (insert buzzword here), then we will have a hard time reaching consensus about how to go forward. (This is the lesson from "The Tower of Babel".)

For example:

"Public Engagement" -- If a government official gives a speech to the public, does that qualify as "public engagement"? (Some people at the White House think so.)

"Transparent" -- Some people speak as if government "transparency" does not currently exist. But others see it as a quality that can be measured (i.e., we have some now, but would like to be "more transparent").

"Participation" vs. "Collaboration" -- What's the difference between these terms? Can a person collaborate on a proposal *without* participating (or vice-versa)?

Other "fuzzwords" that need clarification in order for citizens to decide whether to participate: "townhall meeting" (aka, "town meeting"), "informational hearing", "public forum", "scoping meeting", "listening session", etc.

Most people DO want to know "what's going on". However, before they decide to get involved, it first needs to CLEAR to them just what they might be getting themselves into. If the invitation is unclear, the public will ignore it.
Federal departments can only become more Transparent, Participatory, and Collaborative with outsiders (citizens) unless those same things are adopted INTERNALLY. Those qualities can only show up on the *outside* if they are valued on the *inside*.

However, federal departments do NOT have the internal openness that makes it *safe* for their employees (and those of contractors) to suggest ways to make their organizations "work better and cost less".

Now, you don't have to work for the government to know that it can be dangerous to one's career to suggest to your boss (or your boss's boss) that their office is operating in a "less-than-optimum" way (i.e., that they might be wasting money, and don't even know it.)

However, it is more dangerous for government workers to make such suggestions about "better ways" of doing work because, even if the idea is successful, it is the Public's money that will be seen as having been "wasted" in the past. And so, the employee's manager fears being second-guessed by higher-ups as to why didn't the manager recognize this "better way" earlier? And how is it that this "better way" came from a lower-paid underling?

WATCH THE VIDEO: Here's a very good (satirical) video about "Barriers to Innovation" that, even though produced by a team at NASA, is easily recognized by virtually every federal employee (except the new ones). National Public Radio did a story on it (along with a link to the video)--> www.tinyurl.com/as3son

SOLUTION: There needs to be a ONLINE SYSTEM system that allows government employees to raise ideas AND also protects their true identity. These systems already exist and Fortune 500 companies use them to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (following the WorldCom and Enron scandals). Anonymity is necessary because most government managers are comfortable with the status-quo and, quite naturally, take actions against those who would imply that current operations are somehow flawed. [BTW: The existing I.G. system is NOT safe.]

Yes, there ARE some enlightened managers in govt. who do encourage innovation and continous improvement, but they are relatively RARE. The vast majority of managers are not so enlightened and, as a result, the average employee is acting VERY rationally when they decide to keep their ideas to themselves!

And, BTW, those average employees will NOT start to act irrationally (by speaking up) just because the White House passes out awards to "champions" whose success is largely due to their blind luck in having an enlightened boss. There is no proof that V.P. Gore's "Golden Hammer" awards during the 1990's made any real change in the C.Y.A. mindset of federal managers.

This idea is important because nothing ever changes for the better until someone first says "Hey, why don't try it this way?" And, because there is always room for improvement in any organization (some more than others), we need to hear ALL the ideas that people have for improvements, ESPECIALLY from those who are the most familiar with the existing operations.

If the President wants to open up the operations of federal departments to allow for better public input and feedback, then he needs to give the "closet-innovators" working WITHIN those departments the same, if not MORE, of the freedom to challenge the status-quo without fear of reprisal.

BOTTOM-LINE:

If the President does NOT make it safe for federal employees to innovate (or to just point out waste), then they will NOT put their jobs on the line for him as "agents of change." If he wants to enlist them, then he must protect them from the enemies of change.

FOR MORE INFO about achieving government transparency (both internally and externally)--> www.UStransparency.com
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas

Comments Posted

Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
Steve,

We have been on the same wavelength for
a number of years, eh?

I guess I neglected to tell you about my similar idea:

"MyGov.gov" --> Customized to What Affects YOU

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2929-4049

FYI: This site will be active until June 19th, but the "Phase 2-Discuss" (blog?) will start Wednesday, June 3rd.

However, I suggest that we still keep this back-channel open by subscribing to the email-updates on comments for similar "Brainstorming" ideas. Just post any comment at all under any Idea, and you will be subscribed to additional further comments.

Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
Dear Commentors:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on my
"Brainstorm Idea" for a more transparent
and open federal government (at least,
for the executive branch).

Even though the site for "Brainstorming" will
be open until June 19th, the second phase
will kick off June 3rd (Wednesday) with a
"Discussion Blog" (of some kind).

Not knowing how that "blog" will work, it
may be wise to keep this channel open if
we need to share thoughts about the how
this idea fares in Phase 2.

So be sure to continue watching for
email-notices about the new comments
placed here.

(If you are reading this on the web, and
want to receive email-updates of new postings
on this Idea, just leave any sort of comment,
and you will be kept updated.)

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
Dear Commentors:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on my
"Brainstorm Idea" for a more transparent
and open federal government (at least,
for the executive branch).

Even though the site for "Brainstorming" will
be open until June 19th, the second phase
will kick off June 3rd (Wednesday) with a
"Discussion Blog" (of some kind).

Not knowing how that "blog" will work, it
may be wise to keep this channel open if
we need to share thoughts about the how
this idea fares in Phase 2.

So be sure to continue watching for
email-notices about the new comments
placed here.

(If you are reading this on the web, and
want to receive email-updates of new postings
on this Idea, just leave any sort of comment,
and you will be kept updated.)

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
Dear Commentors:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on my
"Brainstorm Idea" for a more transparent
and open federal government (at least,
for the executive branch).

Even though the site for "Brainstorming" will
be open until June 19th, the second phase
will kick off June 3rd (Wednesday) with a
"Discussion Blog" (of some kind).

Not knowing how that "blog" will work, it
may be wise to keep this channel open if
we need to share thoughts about the how
this idea fares in Phase 2.

So be sure to continue watching for
email-notices about the new comments
placed here.

(If you are reading this on the web, and
want to receive email-updates of new postings
on this Idea, just leave any sort of comment,
and you will be kept updated.)

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
Dear Commentors:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on my
"Brainstorm Idea" for a more transparent
and open federal government (at least,
for the executive branch).

Even though the site for "Brainstorming" will
be open until June 19th, the second phase
will kick off June 3rd (Wednesday) with a
"Discussion Blog" (of some kind).

Not knowing how that "blog" will work, it
may be wise to keep this channel open if
we need to share thoughts about the how
this idea fares in Phase 2.

So be sure to continue watching for
email-notices about the new comments
placed here.

(If you are reading this on the web, and
want to receive email-updates of new postings
on this Idea, just leave any sort of comment,
and you will be kept updated.)

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
Dear Commentors:

Since this site will be open until June
19th, we can still "connect" by leaving
comments here during Phase 2 which
starts on Wednesday, June 3rd.

However, you are welcome to gather with
us also at this discussion (you need
not be a federal employee):
http://www.govloop.com/group/nepatown/forum/topics/nepa-and-the-open-government

P.S. The author of this idea
on "NEPA.Gov" (John Able) is there.

P.P.S. I also left a similar invitation
on the *other* NEPA-related idea by
Nicholas Dewar ("NEPA: turn the writing
of the EIS into an 'open-book' process"):

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2916-4049

vr, Stephen Buckley
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
Nicholas (and others):

Since this site will be open until June
19th, we can still "connect" by leaving
comments here during Phase 2 which
starts on Wednesday, June 3rd.

However, you are welcome to gather with
us also at this discussion (you need
not be a federal employee):
http://www.govloop.com/group/nepatown/forum/topics/nepa-and-the-open-government

P.S. The author of the related idea
on "NEPA.Gov" (John Able) is also there.

vr, Stephen Buckley
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
As the author of this idea, I want you to know that
a "citizen-centric" portal is not my idea alone.
Here's something that I posted at GovLoop.com back
in February (notice the link):

(quote begins)

Are you a little bit exasperated with people in your
agency who don't quite "get it" about Web 2.0
(or who think they do)?

See the URL below for something that is much more
readable because it is not written in geek-speak.
But watch out, it's also impressive in how it
describes the future role of social-networking
and open-government policy as part of "Public Media 2.0".

Customer-service nerds will especially like the
graphic showing "The Customer is the new Platform"
(a quote by Doc Searls) referring to "the people
formerly known as the audience" (or, in government
terms, "the public"). See page 7.

"Public Media 2.0: Dynamic, Engaged Publics"
by American Univ.'s Center for Social Media:

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/documents/whitepaper.pdf

(quote ends)
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
Laurie,

Great idea, of course. In 1997, I set up the first web-forum for the public to comment on a federally proposed project (i.e., permanent closure of Penn. Ave. in front of the White House).

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparenc.com
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
The President's Memo mentions the need (3) times for public feedback to improve Transparency, Participation, and Collaboration.

So it's possible, but hard to imagine, an OG Directive that does not imagine the same thing for itself.

In other words, they better NOT forget about it.

Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
The members of an organization can't be any more tranparent to outsiders than they are to themselves.

Transparency, like so many other qualities, has to start on the inside, before you see it on the outside.

That what I was trying to convey in my idea:

"Make It Safe for Govt. Workers to Innovate to Save Money"

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2481-4049

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
Of course, the law should be tightened up. But this is still a pound of cure, when an ounce of prevention will do.

I'm a federal whistleblower who tried the legal route, so I know its *limitations* for relief even if we add the "ideal" legal language.

Time to start replacing the need to go to court with technology that prevents retaliation in the first place. See my Idea:

"Make It Safe for Govt. Workers to Innovate to Save Money"

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2481-4049

Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
Nicholas,

Yes, I know about the "Principles of Public Engagement". I was on the "core team" that drafted them. However, even though I endorsed them, I do not consider them as providing more specifics to federal employees than the President's Memo already has. Basically, it's just more adjectives.

When the President says he wants federal agencies to be "more" (transparent, participatory, collaborative), federal employees just wants to know how much "more", and how do they measure "more"? That's the type of direction that will go OpenGov Directive. (I used to work with federal directive systems.)
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
This looks like it's related to my idea:

Let's Be Clear on the Terminology about "Public Engagement"
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2693-4049
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
I truly wish it that it would be that easy.

If "whistleblower protection" were as simple as passing a new law or issuing a new directive, it would have happened a long time ago.

It is not easy to prove that a manager is retaliating against a whistleblower. How do can you prove that the promotion really should have gone to Bill, instead of Dave? Unless it's really blatant (which is very rare), there's no way to figure out if it's reprisal or performance-related.

And if you can't prove retaliation, then you can't "punish retaliation". Please show me the language in such a directive that will solve that all-too-common dilemma. Otherwise, all this idea is just wishful rhetoric.

The only real way to prevent retaliation is to shield the identity of the whistleblower.

And an online system is the best way to do that. It's what Fortune 500 companies now use to comply with the federal law (ironically) following the WorldCom and Enron scandals. See my idea:

Make It Safe for Govt. Workers to Innovate to Save Money
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2481-4049

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
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
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
I agree that individuals are very rarely
the root-cause of poor performance.

However, if "the system" is the problem, i.e.,
it's making people act a certain way, then to
find the root-cause in the system, you have to
have a way to raise the issue for discussion.
And that means talking about why a person
(your boss) is doing something a certain way
that is contributing to poor performance (or
preventing better performance) by his/her
employees.

See my idea for raising "undiscussable" issues
by allowing govt. employees to use anonymous
online system:

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2481-4049

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
John --

Even though NEPA is 40 years-old, so few people
understand its legal requirement for citizen
involvement that I call it "The Secret Public
Participation Act of 1969".

I had NEPA in the back of my mind when I wrote
up my idea:

"MyGov.gov" --> Customized to What Affects You

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2929-4049

I suggest you go to GovLoop.com and join the group
called "NEPAtown" that I started. We just started
talking there about this aspect of NEPA.

vr,
Stephen Buckley
(my profile here)
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/pmd/3860-4049
http://www.UStransparency.com
Stephen Buckley 9 months ago
Tom --

I got your comment/message under my idea:

"MyGov.gov" --> Customized to What Affects You
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2929-4049

From the discussion here, it sounds like you are talking not so much
about a "portal", but the feature for group-dialogue that would be found
there, and then on to what's are the best platforms out there.

Of course, eventually, there will be some kind of website ("portal") like you describe.
But, at this early point in the process, it is premature to discuss (here) which
particular software might be suitable for such a site.

I'd like to discuss this more, but this brainstorming phase/site will go inactive
on June 3rd, so is there a relevant online discussion area that is
better suited (than here) for continuing this?

vr,
Stephen Buckley
(my profile here) http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/pmd/3860-4049
http://www.UStransparency.com
Stephen Buckley 10 months ago
Nicholas -- For someone who's never worked on an EIS, you could qualify as a "NEPA-nerd". If you'd like to discuss what I call the "Secret Public Participation Act of 1970" (aka NEPA), I suggest you join the "NEPAtown" group on GovLoop.com. (You don't have to be a govt. worker to join.)