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

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.).

Give Citizens a Simple Checklist for Rating "Public Engagement" 

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".]

Let's Be Clear on the Terminology about "Public Engagement" 

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.

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

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