Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

bidwell2

User Profile Image bidwell2
Member since : May-26-2009 (Verified)
1 Ideas, 5 Comments, 10 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

Although many of the posts in this category are concerned with making all government data and communications available to the public, I would like to address a different transparency concept: process transparency.

In this form of transparency, there is government openness regarding how decisions will be made. This includes making public and publicizing timetables, process road maps, decision criteria, roles/participants in each step of the process, and opportunities for participation, as well as how that participation will inform the decision process. Ideally, a first step in a decision process would allow the public and interest groups to comment on the decision process itself.

Though this sounds relatively easy, process transparency faces multiple institutional/cultural obstacles. Process transparency requires support from the highest levels of agency leadership and elected officials to avoid backroom deal-making and last-minute power plays (at least without publicly updating the decision road map).
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas
12345678910….168169Next »

Comments Posted

bidwell2 9 months ago
Let me expand on my earlier comment about goals, because it would help me better understand the other comments here. Participatory processes can achieve many kinds of goals, but different approaches are appropriate for reaching different goals. Here are some possible goals for a process (note: "community" is scalable; it can mean a neighborhood, a group with common interests, a nation, etc.):

*Foster greater civic dialogue to strengthen community, inform the public, and build on common ground. (Participatory approaches: community deliberations, online forums.)
*Provide "decision makers" (e.g., elected officials, agency personnel) with informed recommendations/perspectives representative of the community. (Approach: Citizen juries)
*Integrate perspectives/values of key interest groups into decisions. (Approach: advisory committees)
*Empower the community to make decisions. (Approach: referendums)
*Inform the community, transparency of decisions and decision process. (Approach: public meetings, information repositories, informative websites)

Each approach has its own particular biases. Even a citizen jury, which intends to be most representative of a community's demographics (or perhaps values?) is biased in who chooses or is able to participate. Moreover, there are normative pressures and inter-/intra-group dynamics in deliberative groups.
bidwell2 9 months ago
Overall, we need to think about participation and what goals we are hoping to serve with each program/project.
bidwell2 9 months ago
This post does a good job highlighting what should be a key component of all participation programs/projects: matching strategies with goals.

There are many different approaches to participation in decision making, which serve different goals. Ortwin Renn has some very good, recent writings on this.
bidwell2 9 months ago
The Internet can be a useful tool in openness, participation, and making information available. It is only one tool, however, and should not become synonymous with participation.

I like the suggestion to mandate an online component of NEPA, but suggest a couple of details:

1. Citizens/groups should be able to subscribe to receive notices via email, based on certain search criteria (topic, location, etc). One should never assume that people will check a central database on a regular basis.

2. Any online initiative should include training initiatives/certification programs for public/academic libraries, which continue to be an important source of Internet access for many citizens. An in-person, local resource for understanding the NEPA process and how the database fits into the process would be critical for many.
bidwell2 9 months ago
It seems that FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act) badly needs to be revisited and revised. Moreover, more leadership is needed regarding the purposes and principles of the Act. FACA implementation, as controlled by agency/departmental lawyers, is terribly inconsistent throughout the executive branch.