How do you define "government transparency?"
We are hearing a lot about a more open, transparent and collaborative government as a presidential directive...but what exactly does transparency mean? What's your definition of "government transparency?"
Earlier this year, NextGov asked federal managers this question, then shared their responses. Click on the image below to learn more.
Take a look at their answers and the feedback from your colleagues below, then let us know what you think: how do you define transparency?
Earlier this year, NextGov asked federal managers this question, then shared their responses. Click on the image below to learn more.
Take a look at their answers and the feedback from your colleagues below, then let us know what you think: how do you define transparency?
Tags: open gov, open government, opengov, transparency
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Bevarly on -
“Transparency.” The buzz word around the ARRA. Since the administration and the public have latched on to this word when it comes to the new open government philosophy, we have learned that there can be many interpretations of the word.
To communications professionals, it means one thing; to IT folks, something quite different; and, to the public, something all together different. However, to most people, transparency has to do with disclosure. Providing information about an issue, event, project, policy, program etc. and then providing a way for people to find and view that information.
Typically, that would suffice. However, when the term is applied in our system of government that particular definition does not go far enough to meet the public’s (expected) definition of transparency. In a democracy, transparency should be defined as disclosure and discussion.
After all, these issues, projects, and programs all have to do with the public’s interest, and using the public’s money. Disclosure, as the definition of transparent provides citizens with a window in which to view a process. By adding the ability to have discussion around that process provides citizens with a seat at the table in which to collaborate about the content that is being presented to them and what it means.
In case anyone is interested, last March, I posted in my blog “A suggestion for what 'Transparency' looks like.” I focused on the ARRA and the challenge to include citizens in not only the reporting of the data but how they can also be part of the dialog on how their money is being spent and what impact it is having on their lives, their communities and on their states.
Andrew, this is a good question.
-
Permalink Reply by Tricia on -
To me, government transparency is reducing the gaps between what government "designs", and the "reality" of which it is. It provides the public information on the "evaluation" and "measurement" - which in turns may then provide accountability for public servants.
I see it as though there are multiple types of transparencies – publications that are produced, the transactions that take place, reporting these things to the public and/or other government officials, providing a sense of openess (details on the performance), as well as providing a sense of accountability (the performance information - reward or punishment).
Within this “government transparency” there is of course, lots of data - financial, procurement, workflow (activities and resources), and registration to record the particular details with the public sector. Everything recorded, and disseminated to the public via news media outlets, government websites and reports, etc. etc.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Nicklin on -
The best definition that I have seen is here: http://wiki.opengovdata.org/index.php?title=OpenDataPrinciples. In theory it is possible to devise measurements against each of these 8 criteria which then allows you to measure your success in becoming transparent. It also doesn't mean you have to achieve all 8.
As if that wasn't general enough, I'd go even wider than that and say that the first step is to not just think of it as a noun (a defined objective) and start thinking of it as a verb (a process).
-
Permalink Reply by Lisa Nelson on -
I think of transparency as allowing citizens to "see through" the workings of government. In this way they can investigate whether or not their leaders and organizations have met their expectations. The public is empowered by being brought into governments inner circles.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Krzmarzick on -
Excellent responses! Can we define it in a catch phrase? Not that it's that simple, but is something like the pithy phrase enough to capture it?
> No More "Big Brother" Watching Us. We're All Watching Him.
> Please Pay Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain
> Welcome to the Government's Glass House
Just trying to stir it up here a bit... :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Bevarly on
-
a little twist on your phrases:
No More "Big Brother" Watching Us. We're all Watching Us.
We're Going to Need a Bigger Curtain
Welcome to the Government's Glass House, Homeowner
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Krzmarzick on
-
P.S. Government Executive also featured the issue of transparency in an issue earlier this year called "Behind the Curtain" and the TechInsider Blog just addressed the delay in the memo's release.
-
Permalink Reply by Ari Herzog, MPA on -
I don't understand. Does anyone -- at least any Govloop member -- NOT want to embrace transparency?
I think you're asking the wrong audience, Andy.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Hammer on
-
I think most would embrace more "transparency", but I also think that there are many different definitions of what transparency means, depending on the stakeholder.
For instance, from the perspective of the public service user, "transparent" means that all the required steps, procedures, paperwork, or other requirements are presented clearly at the outset. Such an individual equates more transparency with less runaround.
From the perspective of the grumpy taxpayer, "transparency" often relates to how money is spent. For that individual transparency = fiscal accountability.
From the perspective of the voter, "transparency" = comprehensible policies.
From the perspective of the federal job applicant, "transparent" means they understand exactly how staffing is conducted, how and why they will be tested, how staffing decisions are made, and what happens next.
From the perspective of the federal employee, "transparent" may simply mean that the decisions of others are comprehensible enough to be anticipable (is that a word?). I.E., the way and basis of the decisions my management makes are sensible enough that I can adapt to them and carry out my own job responsibilities effectively and i concert with the organization's broader plans.
In general, transparent = predictable / coherent / plausible To a lesser extent, it also means timely. If one inquires why something happened, and no reply comes back for months, even the most exhaustive reply is likely to leave one thinking that there may be some information being withheld. So let's also say that transparent = perceptibly honest, with all the behavioural trappings thereof, like timeliness.
Whatever the case, or stakeholder perspective, transparency does NOT mean inundating the stakeholder with mountains of unexplained quantitative information. That is, transparency does not equal what I like to call "accountabalism": the cult of measuring anything and everything, regardless of precision or validity.
The late Larry Terry, in his book "Leadership of Public Bureaucracies: The Administrator as Conservator", makes the case for public institutions and their leaders doing what is needed to stay true to their mission and mandate. He makes a very persuasive case that the authorities of a public institution, under law, may not be quite as important as its authoritativeness. That is, its perception by the public and other government stakeholders as the place/people/institution where sound judgment and perspective reside regarding certain matters. The willingness to offer one's buy-in to that public institution's actvities is not only a function of the historical consistency of their activities and thinking, but the extent to which you trust them. I would argue that staying true to one's mission, being mindful of it, and reminding stakeholders of it as well, is part of what makes a public institution, and whatever policies, programs, or activities emerge from it, "transparent" to people. It is what lets the citizen and public servant think to themselves "I know how these folks think, what their motives are, what they take into account, and what their track record is, and on that basis, I expect and accept that policy/procedure/outcome X is authentically in the public interest and in my interest.". In that sense, "transparency" is the obvious connection between the particulars and the higher order motives and principles underlying the particulars.
Case in point. When you assess a job candidate using some behavioural method, they often want more feedback than you can give them. They may treat the lack of thorough feedback as unfair, largely because they think from their own perspective, and feel your reluctance is impeding their improvement. When you remind them that it could be the case that they are taking that test for the first time, in competition with others who might have been through it before, and that any more extensive feedback to those people during a prior asessment would put THEM (the concerned candidate) at a clear disadvantage, they can begin to see that what might appear to be unfair to them in the narrow perspective, actually makes for a fairer system in the broader picture. That in fact what initially feels like something targetting them is really something intended to protect them and their right to a level playing field. The particulars get connected to the big picture and higher-order principles. Suddenly, the procedures become "transparent".
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Harris on -
"Context!" Great post.
-
Permalink Reply by Angela Sanchez on -
Maybe not anyone here, but there are alot of government agencies that are unwilling or reluctant to embrace transparency. Transparency means helping the public understand how and why decisions that influence them are made. It means being accountable to the taxpayer. It means exposing dishonesty, waste and laziness in government. It means rubbing elbows and communicating with the great unwashed. It's much easier to issue edicts with little or no explanation, ignore the naysayers, give canned responses (we appreciate your input... NOT), and clock out at the end of the day without a care because you have the power and no one is allowed to question you.
Popular Content
Latest Activity
I vote for #7! Great piece!
Simple: I believe in our mission at EPA. In my 17 years here, I've literally helped save the world by working to protect the ozone layer, helped people understand acid rain, and run our response websites for 9/11 and Katrina. And now I lead our enti…
Both Government Workers and Federal Contractors network through Web 2 and 3.0 - this group embraces the federal contractor on GovLoop.
We're swinging into the final weekend of summer. Looks like we are safe from the hurricane, so to keep the season going as long as we can, time to list your favorite summer songs. What makes you feel like school's out? What is a song that defined a…
San Francisco's aggressive open data efforts were on display this week, as civic and technology leaders took the stage at sf.govfresh, an event highlighting technology innovation in City government. City CIO Chris Vein (who also was recently intervi…
I want to have both my votes to go to # 8 good job Kyle
Top Content
© 2010 Created by GovLoop.
