Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Edward

User Profile Image Edward
Member since : May-21-2009 (Verified)
1 Ideas, 32 Comments, 83 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

Hold National Town Hall meetings which would be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order. The President would call a national town hall meeting, set the agenda including the issues to be discussed and will determine the number of states, counties and cities to be involved and specify the date and time of these meetings.

CONDUCTING TOWN HALLS

A person representing the President and members of Congress from the district would call each meeting to order, and put the question of who will be elected meeting chair to those attending. The meeting would then vote on who will be Chair and the Chair will read the agenda and divide the group up into policy issues or small groups of 5-10 people who will then elect group moderators who will lead the group in discussion and ensure Robert's Rules are followed.

At a specified time the group will vote on their issues electronically or by voice vote. This will then be electronically passed to the group moderator or the group moderator will pass the information to the group moderator who will enter it electronically.

Then the entire meeting will be called back to order and the Chair will lead a discussion of the issues as voted on by the various groups. Once discussion has been completed and everyone has had the opportunity to speak or the fixed time has been reached the Meeting Chair will put the question(s) to attendees who will vote on each issue either electronically (depending on the software being used) or in person. The issues and votes will then be entered into the computer if they haven't already and the President, members of Congress and other town halls will be able to see how each town hall voted.

Then the President will call on the first town hall to obtain the floor by logging on and ask the Group Chair to present their conclusions. If he or members of Congress who are co-hosting the meeting have questions they would be able to ask them.

The President would then go through the list of town hall meetings until each group has had the opportunity to speak at least once. Then the attendees of the national town hall would be asked to vote on what was discussed. This if at all possible would be done electronically or directly but either way the results would be electronically or manually entered into a computer.

The President would then conclude the meeting, thank everyone for their time and turn the meeting back over to the town hall chairs. Each chair would then conclude the meeting.

TECHNOLOGY TO BE USED

Depending on the needs of each town hall the technology used may vary but the technology exists and the technology used by the town halls would vary based on size and current needs and resources yet the administration would provide each state, legislative district, or city town hall representative with basic to be used at the meeting. Depending on the size of the meeting the President may choose to provide each attendee with a voting machine (simple clickers which are inexpensive could also be used).

HOW MANY ATTENDEES

Depending on the issues and what the administration and members of Congress would like to accomplish anywhere from 1 to 1,000's of town hall meetings could attend the national town hall meeting. The number of attendees at each would vary but the administration could (on a first come, first serve) basis determine a fixed number of attendees at each of the town hall meetings.

Let's assume that the President would like to hold one meeting in each state to be held at its State Capitol. The number he wishes to attend is 1,000. The town halls would be divided up into small groups of 10 (as I noted above) and the total number of groups at each town hall would be 10. These meeting would convene on the specified day and time with an agenda.

The meetings would last or about 2 to 3 hours depending on the agenda and then they would link up with the White House, members of Congress and the other town halls through the chosen online medium.

If each town hall would be allowed to address the President for 10 minutes that would be a total of 50 minutes of the President's time and a commitment of 3-4 hours of attendees time. The voting results would be provided to the President in aggregate form and he could use the information to make decisions or if he chooses he could ask the attendees to stay for a prolonged discussion that lasts for a few more hours.

CONCLUSION

As you can see the idea could be tailored depending on specific circumstances and could be a major town hall involving millions of Americans in cities and states around the country or a town hall meeting with several legislative districts. I have tried to avoid going into the details of such town halls because that would detract from the simplicity of what can be done and which can be expanded to include millions of Americans.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas

Comments Posted

Edward 9 months ago
sarahraek, I'm so sick of this that I am not even really using this site anymore. I came here to have a real discussion about transparency and participation in government and instead this has turned into a spammers heaven. ttemple's post is an example of this. I don't want to go to my email and read these kinds of comments.

If anyone knows how I can stop receiving email alerts for a specific idea please let me know since I haven't been able to find one and these comments are getting on my nerves. Let the spammers have their heaven.
Edward 9 months ago
@ricardomigrant

"(My email is ricardomigrant@aol.com - inlcude your email address if you want me to reply to you)"

This is going to be the second time I respond to this exact same post by you. Posting the same messages across several ideas is spam. There are those of us who chose "Notify me via email when someone responds or action is taken on this Topic/Idea" and who receive emails for each post which is made.

No one needs to post their email address when there is a feature that already allows us to publicly discuss any idea on this site. I've learned from my involvement in government and business that there are mentally ill people who think that people should personally get into a discussion with them.

That isn't the purpose of this website. If you want to reply to what I have said feel free to do so by posting here. I can assure you that I will get a copy of it in my email.
Edward 9 months ago
This has nothing to do with transparency and is spam.
Edward 9 months ago
@Nathan Poe,

You are rude and I don't have to put up with this and neither do others. We don't have to have a jerk waste our time.

We come here to contribute and you waste our time posting the same idea over so we have to scroll down. It's the height of rudeness and hubris.

This will be my sixth response to this same post and all I did was click on "new posts" since I last visited and every last one was this spam. This isn't the first time this has happened to me either. I am sick of it.

"luvwith," I only posted one idea for that issue. Do not blindly accuse me without looking at what I've posted."

He was referring to you violating the rules of this site and not checking to see if this idea had been posted before and avoid duplicates.

What part of "(1) Search for Ideas to make sure that your idea or area of interest hasn't already been covered. (2) Vote, Vote, Vote! Your votes are critical to ensuring that the best ideas "bubble up" to the top. (3) Add Your Idea by clicking on the "New Idea" button to the left and (4) Spread the Word! E-mail a link to this website to your network, and invite them to get involved" don't you seem to understand?

Is it # 1?

You refer to censorship in your post but it it isn't censorship to me when I'm the one who is having my time wasted.

Removing duplicate posts because others are to arrogant or lazy to use a search engine and to contribute to an already existing idea simply by commenting on it isn't censorship. If you want to discuss this idea post it to the same idea which already exists. That is why we have a comment feature on this site. The post an idea isn't to be used as a COMMENT feature.

"I have the right to express my views and will continue to do so, in a respectful manner."

It is not respectful of my time to post the same idea that has already been posted. It is rude.

"Take your attitude elsewhere as I will not put up with it."

Why don't you take your attitude elsewhere and stop spamming people because I will not put up with it.
Edward 9 months ago
Now for my response yet again. Response five and counting.

I will make the exact same response to this as post as I will for every single one of them on this site.

I say again "Because it is annoying to have to read through these posts when they have absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the site.

It prevents people who want to discuss how to make government more transparent from doing so because they are wasting time reading through posts that don't serve any purpose. This isn't a place to ask the administration questions or to make specific policy proposals."
Edward 9 months ago
@ricardomigrant

"(My email is ricardomigrant@aol.com - inlcude your email address if you want me to reply to you)"

Since I can click on "Notify me via Email when someone responds or action is taken on this Topic/Idea" I will just let you post any reply to this forum and read it in my email.
Edward 9 months ago
Response four and counting.

I will make the exact same response to this as post as I will for every single one of them on this site.

I say again "Because it is annoying to have to read through these posts when they have absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the site.

It prevents people who want to discuss how to make government more transparent from doing so because they are wasting time reading through posts that don't serve any purpose. This isn't a place to ask the administration questions or to make specific policy proposals."
Edward 9 months ago
Response three and counting.

I will make the exact same response to this as post as I will for every single one of them on this site.

I say again "Because it is annoying to have to read through these posts when they have absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the site.

It prevents people who want to discuss how to make government more transparent from doing so because they are wasting time reading through posts that don't serve any purpose. This isn't a place to ask the administration questions or to make specific policy proposals."
Edward 9 months ago
Response two and counting.

I will make the exact same response to this as post as I will for every single one of them on this site.

I say again "Because it is annoying to have to read through these posts when they have absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the site.

It prevents people who want to discuss how to make government more transparent from doing so because they are wasting time reading through posts that don't serve any purpose. This isn't a place to ask the administration questions or to make specific policy proposals."
Edward 9 months ago
Because it is annoying to have to read through these posts when they have absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the site.

It prevents people who want to discuss how to make government more transparent from doing so because they are wasting time reading through posts that don't serve any purpose. This isn't a place to ask the administration questions or to make specific policy proposals.
Edward 9 months ago
@carrick.baugh

I have my own experience with college students and I certainly don't agree with you. Those who are spinning their wheels so to speak are those who can't afford to go to school, work two full time jobs and study. These are the same people I have helped apply for financial aid and who should receive financial aid because they don't have any support from their deceased parents or the state whose custody they were in until they were 18.

Instead, I am forced to help them out of the kindness of my heart.
Edward 9 months ago
The length of this comment was annoying. I had to stroll down a lot to just get past it and it didn't interest me. I consider this letter to be a form of spam. The next time you want to post this please consider posting a link to it instead of forcing everyone to scroll it.
Edward 9 months ago
I'm inclined to oppose this idea because it places the CRS between elected representatives and their constituents. The CRS isn't in the business of providing services to the public. Their sole function is to provide research aid to members of Congress, leadership and any of the Congressional committees.

If members of Congress wish to release the end product to their constituents they can do so but the moment we start to politicize the CRS and remove them as an impartial provider of research to members of Congress they would be forced to go directly to the public and write to the public.

If we start making all of these reports public than the individuals who author these reports will become more familiar names than members of Congress who represent us. That's dangerous to our system of government.

It may make us feel important and to think that we are somehow on the inside loop because we can read these reports but if we want to see these reports we should run for Congress or contact our member of Congress to request the reports.
Edward 9 months ago
Being in the building may not mean that they have heard both sides but it does mean that those who disagree with them have an equal opportunity to look them in the eye and say their piece. It forces members of Congress to be present and to listen to the roll call. To allow them to vote from another location also doesn't prevent others from casting the votes for them or for the Clerk(s) to see that the vote is accurately recorded and represents the people present. It also ignores the clause of the U.S. Constitution that says "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide."

Business can't and should not be conducted without the presence of those involved. Any person who is unable or unwilling to be physically present should not be allowed to participate in a public meeting of any kind and that includes Congress.
Edward 9 months ago
I personally believe that our founding fathers were correct when they stated that majority rule is the basis of a republic. That when we take that away than we cease to be a republic. The only reason that a minority has any rights is because a majority has extended those rights to them and continue to protect those rights.
Edward 9 months ago
@carrick.baugh

Beth is correct. The problem that many people have is that they simply can't afford to go to school and provide for themselves. They work 2 full-time jobs, and go to school full time. I personally know someone who works 80 hours a week at 7.00 an hour and who is taking 13 credit hours. This young man is studying up to 38 hours a week and is now on the way to graduating at the top of his class but the toll it has taken on him is hard. His average week is almost 130 hours long.

The sacrifices that this young man has made to get ahead are uncalled for especially considering how much money he will pay in taxes over the course of his life.
Edward 9 months ago
The number one problem with this is that people need to see and speak to each other in person to make any kind of human connection.

The reason that there is so much partisanship, and nastiness in recent years is because of the advent of the internet age.

We are inundated with messages from Twitter, Facebook, blogs and other social networking websites. It has dehumanized us and others.

We are constantly bombarded with messages of human suffering and feelings that we simply can't take it all in and process it. Making meetings of Congress an internet meeting may seem like a good idea if we ignore the simple fact that computers are hard on our eyes. The reason few people read books online and instead prefer to read a physical book is that you can sit back, relax and enjoy a good read while those who use the internet to do this are worked up, and excited. They can quickly find information or retorts on the internet by using Google.

They don't even have to take time to consider what the other person has said and to think up their own response before they blog, or post a response.

All we need to do is make our members of Congress become like those who post nasty messages to an online forum.
Edward 9 months ago
@d1doherty,

I do think that people take issue with the idea of Robert Rules more than they do with the idea of Town Hall meetings because many people don't know anything about Robert's Rules. Nor do they understand the principles behind the rules. If they did they would understand that the Rules are based on how we conduct ourselves in normal every day settings and conversations.

Instead they assume that it is a structured system that grants an unlimited authority to the Chair when in reality a Chair is just the face of the entire body.

There are also problems with the other systems you listed which are address by Robert's Rules and which can't be adequately addressed by the other systems.

Take Dynamic Facilitation: This system assumes that everyone shares a passionate interest in the same thing and that they are immersed in a common problem that they all share and they are friends, family or work together frequently and that a resolution is desired.

But National Town Halls will involve thousands of people who don't know each other, who will have different ideologies and opinions and are affected differently by the various policies so Dynamic Facilitation wouldn't work in national settings.

The problem that Wisdom Council suffer from is the assumption that people will be willing to work together and to reach unanimity when they are totally different and coming from different settings, background and experiences. These kind of groups work best when the people know each other and have to continue to associate with each other after the meeting concludes. They also operate based on the assumption that everyone agrees with the rules. Robert's Rules doesn't require unanimity.

Wisdom Council would work best in settings where people have an agenda such as promoting Wisdom Councils because they have a vested interest in making sure the process works. Those who don't have any interest in Wisdom Councils will be disruptive. Even the name "Wisdom Council" may be offensive to those who don't agree that any body of people can call themselves wise without being arrogant.

I wouldn't participate in a political meeting that didn't use Robert's Rules or some adaption of the Rules simply because not doing so would give the host or those who called the meeting more power than the participants of the meeting even if the setup and meeting agenda appears to be participatory.

It would essentially guarantee that a handful of intense people control everything and set the rules. I also think it is important for people to get used to the idea of using some form of Robert's Rules since those rules are derived from legislatures and Parliaments and allow people to learn about how those rules are applied before ever holding an elected office.

Every political meeting we have should be a training ground for how people interact with each other in government. There is never going to be a time that Dynamic Facilitation, Wisdom Councils or any other system will be used in Congress or State Legislatures because they are geared to a different type of meeting which is a meeting of those who agree or have a common goal.

When members of Congress aren't busy dropping an F-bomb towards another Congressman they are bound by the rules. They know the rules and they understand how they are applied and even if they are in the minority they are protected. We can't become like other countries where fist fights break out in their legislatures because the rules aren't strictly enforced.

Political meetings aren't chit-chats, firesides or a neighborhood social. We need to be careful to remember that town hall meetings aren't meant to build consensus or to have an open discussion or dialogue. They are meant for people to be heard.

I don't want to come across as a die hard but I think it is always important to remember that I am not going to a meeting that is there to build consensus because that is just another word for the hosts or participants to try to get their way and appear like everyone agrees when they don't. If you can find me one issue that consensus can be reached on and you will have found an issue which is not political in nature.
Edward 9 months ago
@wondernugget

Elections may be interesting, they may be fun and some people may event get out to vote but there's little doubt that the majority of people who don't vote don't fail to vote because they can't get time off from work. The polls are open in most states for over 12 hours and even then over 30 states have laws the require employers to provide time off if the schedule doesn't allow their employees to vote. In addition, many states now have early voting and even allow residents to vote absentee while at their normal places of residence.
Edward 9 months ago
I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say "This category is called "New Strategies and Techniques" and meetings conducted with Robert's Rules are anything but new and have been shown to promote divisiveness and extreme power imbalances between the chair and participants."

First, this belongs in the New Strategies and Techniques section because it deals with the use of technology to hold national town halls.

Second, unless you believe a Chair should have more power than the assembly then I'm not sure what you are trying to get at since the balance of power under "Robert's Rules" is in favor of participants who have almost absolute power.

Let me list a few simple Robert's Rules:

1) A majority rules;
2) A minority has the right to be heard;
3) A person who makes motion speaks first;
4) Only one person may speak at a time;
5) People who want to speak must be recognized;
6) You can't interrupt somebody whose speaking;
7) You talk to the Chair; not other people;
8) Comments must be pertinent to current issue;
9) Chair must rotate from pro to con speakers;
9) A person can't speak twice until everyone has an opportunity to speak;
10) No one can speak more than twice to the same motion;
11) Each speaker is limited to 10 minutes;
12) You must decide what to do before moving on;

To suspend Rule #2 and prevent someone from speaking requires a 2/3rds vote of everyone present. So how is there a "power imbalance" between a Chair who can't silence someone or prevent them from speaking and participants who can only do so with a 2/3rds vote.

The only reason there may be an imbalance in favor of a Chair is because the participants don't know Robert's Rules and we shortchange people if we don't expect them to learn them and how to apply these rules.

Because when the rules are properly applied the Chair has absolutely no control over anyone but a minority but even then that minority even if its one person has the ABSOLUTE right to appeal decisions of the Chair to the entire assembly.

The assembly have such absolute power that they by a super-majority can vote to suspend Roberts Rules if they are interfering with the ability to conduct their business.

Just doing away with them altogeter isn't fair to people since some day those people may go on to become elected officials and have almost no knowledge of how legislatures operate because they haven't had practice in applying Robert's Rules.

If you have a handful of people meeting you may get away with not using Robert's Rules but when the number increases and you fail to use those Rules you will soon have a free for all and not a single thing gets done.

I also don't agree with "There are many techniques that have been used at the community level, state level, and even national and international levels to engage citizens in tough issues as equal participants in dialogue and deliberation"

The reason I don't agree with this is because someone always ends up making those rules and then applying them to everyone who attends and no one is on equal ground except for those who created the rules and who conduct the meeting.

I'm concerned when people speaks against the use of Robert's Rules because they are the only thing that can keep a meeting from becoming a zoo. If I don't agree with a meeting, you are conducting, not applying Robert's Rules. What would you do? How would you deal with those of us who don't like the idea that you get to set the rules?

Not using Robert's Rules almost certainly make us unequal and the funny thing about Robert's Rules is that they are almost always based on common sense so those who are not familiar with the rules are already using them in their day to day life. When you are having a chat with a friend you almost always follow the rule that you never speak when another person is speaking and you certainly don't interrupt them.
Edward 9 months ago
Let me see if I can re-state this since it isn't as clear as you may believe.

You want each federal agency and department to create an Open Government plan within 180 days? This plan should address how the federal agency or department will involve the public in each of the areas it is involved in?

My question is whether this is asking to much and assuming a lot.

What exactly would you propose as the role of the public in hiring, recruiting and promoting government employees? Wouldn't this politicize the civil service and isn't this exactly what the Civil Service reforms had to address.

If we are proposing that the public should be involved in defining the hiring process then I have some reservations but if you are proposing that they should be involved in the actual hiring, recruiting and promoting of employees I have serious reservations.

If it is just drafting the guides, documents, and forms necessary for hiring, recruiting and promoting I'm fine with that as long as those requirements don't become political as a result because that is what the civil reform acts had to overcome.
Edward 9 months ago
This idea sounds good at first glance but when you look at it in more detail you begin to see the problems it poses. Here are just a few:

1) we already have a USA.Gov and Kids.gov site which are geared to allowing easier access to government websites;

2) each agency, department and branch of our government has its own unique needs and there are different ways that they need to present information. Take College.gov as an example since it attempts to take a more innovative approach when recruiting young people to go to college and explaining the process.

3) data customization is also important to the end user and standard websites don't allow for easier access to such information;

4) if every website looks the same then people are less likely to visit them. For example if every online social network provided the same standard format and features people wouldn't use them. If every search engine looks the same why not just use one.

The government should create a Google like search engine for its websites but should not make all of its sites the same. Its just causes more problems then it resolves.

Edward 9 months ago
Since people disagree on what effects civil liberties and how to define civil liberties this would be impossible to apply and would produce more problems then it resolves. So I don't think it is a good idea.
Edward 9 months ago
There are least 30 states with laws requiring employers to provide employee with sufficient time off to vote if they don't have sufficient time to go to the polls before or after their shifts end.

Making elections a federal holiday wouldn't do any good since it would only mean that federal employees get work off and making it a state holiday only means that state employees get the day off.

This still wouldn't give employees the right to not work since state and federal holidays don't apply to private employers.

State government wouldn't want to make it a state holiday since it would mean that state election employees would have the day off and then there wouldn't be anyone tallying votes.

The few states that don't have laws requiring sufficient time off to vote should enact such laws but those laws shouldn't be federal. So I think this is a bad idea.
Edward 9 months ago
Government websites should be accurate down to the last word and not convey false information. I have also used language translation tools and there are countless examples I could give where the translation software was wrong.

Google Translation is a perfect example of how this happens. While they are fairly accurate they can convey the wrong meaning for certain words and without the context you wouldn't know what they were talking about because they even translate the word into English and there is no such English word.

For example, I translated your comment into German and then back into English using Google Translation and I got several major errors that changed the meaning of your comment. One of those errors was "There is technology available that allows for quick and fairly accurate translation of websites. Once translation service that my organization has utilized is WorldLingo."

This was re-translated as "It is [There is] a technology available, enabling a quick and fairly accurate translation of websites. Once the translation service that my organization will be used [has used] WorldLingo."

Comments in [ ] are my corrections. As you can see you went from having used something to will be using. That's a total different meaning.

There needs to be a human who understands the language to proofread a translation before the government translates any of its documents and websites into another language. While I am not sure how accurate WorldLingo is there's always error when there isn't a human translating and the government should never give the impression that it isn't professional.

Now taking the words from the website on the Open Government Initiative inviting people to participate. This is what was written:

"The Administration is committed to developing those recommendations in an open fashion. Consistent with the President’s mandate, we want to be fully transparent in our work, participatory in soliciting your ideas and expertise, and collaborative in how we experiment together to use new tools and techniques for developing open government policy."

This is what comes out after you translate it into German and then back into English: "The Administration is committed to those recommendations in an open manner. In accordance with the President's mandate, we are fully transparent in our work, in advertising participatory share your ideas and know-how, and cooperation in the experiment, as we work together to use new tools and techniques for the development of open government policy."

So I think this is a bad idea but not a bad one if a human is who knows the language is using it to save time.
Edward 9 months ago
Check out my idea at:

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2487-4049

It is pretty much this idea minus AmericaSpeaks nonprofit but I think that this is a good idea. After looking at AmericaSpeaks website I see that this idea is already being used by many different groups such as this one.

I think that the President should set the example and hold several of these sessions.
Edward 9 months ago
@ maitre.alex

Holding national discussions doesn't mean that our elected representatives have to act on the expressed will of the people and can choose to ignore them at their own peril. Discussions do not mean that people can hijack the discussion and instead are a better reflection of how some people feel.

It allows them to be civil and to debate with their friends and neighbors while at the same time being able to hear the views of those who may be drastically different from them based on geography, culture, tradition and values.

Since national discussions have never been used either by Hugo Chavez or Napoleon I'm not sure what you are trying to get at and I definitely don't understand why you would be afraid of the people being able to publicly express opinions in a civil manner and to know and talk with the President like every lobbyist. Its also ironic that you are posting on a forum discussing with the president the issues while advocating that others not be given the same opportunity.

Just because someone can't afford to go to D.C. to express their opinions and don't have tools to be heard by the President doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be heard.

Think of these people as millions of lobbyists and you will understand why there's nothing wrong with the President seeking the people out and allowing them to express their opinions and ask him questions and have him be able to ask them questions.

The lack of these kinds of meetings have led to partisanship, and a lack of civility towards those we disagree with. We can write letters to the editor, we can post to online forums and we can express our opinions. We can even vote an issue up or down on an forum like this one but it's not very conducive to hearing people, and being able to talk with them. It's also a lot easier to insult someone from the comfort of a computer than from across a table.
Edward 9 months ago
I agree with johnbrose. A dialogue needs to go both ways. People need a confirmation that what they have said is heard even if not agreed with because people don't have time to waste if no one is reading their comments or hearing their concerns.

I don't expect the administration or members of Congress to always agree with me but I do expect them to at least listen to what I have to say and have the decency to respond even if it it just to say "i'm sorry but I don't agree with you and here is why..."

If they want me to give them feedback and share my ideas with them then they need to realize that my time is just as valuable as theirs and that I and millions of others took time to give our ideas then they should take the time to at least say that they have received them.
Edward 9 months ago
They wouldn't need to be so through once people get into them and understand how to participate in such meetings. Right now a lot of people do not have the experience to be involved in such meetings or have an adequate knowledge of the issues that would be discussed which means that a through, detailed and informative town hall is better than a brief, free for all discussion of issues of the day.

Let's take education as an issue. If people don't know anything about how our education system works then there's going to have to be more discussion.

Also, the meetings will be inclusive of people with a wide range of views, opinions and ideas. Without following Robert's Rules (which can be simplified if necessary) there is likely to be a handful of people who take over a town hall.

The agenda, on the other hand, can be something as simple as one issue that people can just talk about but if we don't use Robert's Rules then everyone at the meeting should have the same or similar opinions since you don't get a group of people who disagree into the same room and expect them to not get into arguments if you don't have a clear set of rules protecting the rights of the majority and a large minority.
Edward 9 months ago
This is a great idea. There are many current tools that allow for national town halls and there are even people trained to conduct such meetings.

The technology already exists and it wouldn't be hard for the federal government to institute national town halls involving millions meeting in city council chambers and state capitals around the country.

Town Halls like other public meetings follows simple rules and it wouldn't be hard for those rules to be applied with the use of technology. Robert's Rules have even been adopted to meet the needs of online meetings.

If we create a simple system, allow people to gain the floor using current technology we are able to allow anyone who wishes to speak to be heard and to be heard by the President in real time. This doesn't mean that everyone should be allowed to speak at once instead the town hall meetings would develop ideas and discuss them in small groups and have group leaders share what they came up with with the entire meeting who will then vote on those ideas.

The meeting moderators would then link up to an online town hall with the administration and will in the order that they log (Robert's Rules make it clear that the first person who has the floor is recognized by the chair) on be allowed to discuss the conclusions that their town hall arrived at.

This could all be done electronically, and when the meeting moderator has finally tallied all of the votes (the President and his staff would be able to see these votes in real-time using the same technology).

The administration and members of Congress who represent that district could then questions to the group, and the meeting moderator (acting as chair would either respond or recognize someone who seeks the floor and wishes to speak to the President.

This would take some time but I think that it is possible for the President to gather data in real time, hear the concerns of Americans in real time and for members of Congress and the President to co-host these meetings. The number of districts and states involved in the town hall meeting may vary depending on the rules set for that specific national town hall meeting.
Edward 9 months ago
I'm not so sure that current reports which are created at the request of a legislator should be released to the public because it would make the CRS political and place the CRS between the legislator and their constituents.

Open Government shouldn't mean that government services such as the CRS should become a direct point of contact instead of our legislators.

These reports aren't as important as what our legislator thinks, believes and why they are sponsoring legislation or voting a certain way. It would be better if legislators would release this information to their constituents. There is no current law or regulation that prevents a legislator from releasing CRS reports that they have read.
Edward 9 months ago
I agree with Colin Gallagher. Its annoying to have to read through pages of issues unrelated to open government. We are developing an open government initiative and not submitting ideas to change current law or government policy.

It's extremely disrespectful of other people's time to post things that don't add to the real discussion that we are trying to have.

Everyone has issues they feel passionate about but that doesn't mean this is a forum for them. That will come once the government institutes an Open Government Initiative that allows for a public discussion of issues such as an UFO cover up, legalizing marijuana, overturning Roe v. Wade, repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and many others.

I intend to vote down every idea that isn't directly related to open government even if I agree with them because this isn't the proper forum.