OpenGov End Goals

Comment

Comment by Robert Fairbairn on August 31, 2010 at 10:57am

I think we need another goal. Here are a few ideas:
How do we enable citizens to find what the government can do for them or does for them? How can we eliminate the silos in the agencies that put up walls to their "customer". Who is the customer? What do they need?

Your stated goals are very high level and very good but do not imply action. What is the change we are managing? What is the current state, what is the end state? (see thttp://www.lamarsh.com/ mange change stuff as an example.)

I can give you specific agency based examples of things that I cannot find that could be enabled by engaged tools.

Here is a simple one: I want to build a PASSIVE solar house. Where can I find information on what my build options are, what the standards are, how this fits in the energy tax credits, etc.
Hints, information is spread across DOD Air force of all places, NERC, and half a dozen others. None of the current research is cross linked, much of the data is old. (Note that the housing industry is in a worse mess than the government). I have to build my own reference library of information. Oh and the university research is also spread out. (I will stop here as this is enough of one example that I am too close to.)

What i am getting at is to pick some sort of goal and get it done. Show a public use the efforts. What has govloop done to help the public? Market your successes.

Comment by Mary Ann Rosenberry on August 31, 2010 at 10:23am

I agree with the ideal, but also understand the issues that can arise from too much openess. Government is political and politicians make changes by the process of give-and-take. With constituents in the room, legislative folks a less likely to engage in the process because they do not want to look like they are giving something away (and harming their chances at re-election). Each person (reps and constituents) brings to the table their own agendas and their own beliefs. No matter how altruistic. How do you reconcile what you believe is best for all and what I believe is best for all? Compromise. The movement toward openess comes from the belief is that if you educate the public in the process and involve them in decisions that you will have the most applicable outcome - one that is connected to the public that is served. But sometimes what we want and what is actually best for the whole are two different things. Some of this discrepancy/void can be solved by leaders effectively guiding constituents, but then we come back full circle.

Comment by Alberto Cottica on August 31, 2010 at 9:13am

Hello Wayne. Nicely put, and I concur. I would also state that many, if not all, services produce users; that consultants produce clients; etcetera. There is also a feedback loop, from users, clients and citizens back to the service or policy.

Usually the loop starts on the supply end. With government activities, my experience is that you need to start making government better; citizens do not usually demand it (they complain, a lot, but that's not the same thing). Once they try it, if you've done your job well they are hooked, and they will enforce the new, higher quality level in their interaction with agencies.

(Are you coming to PDF Europe this year?)

Comment by Bill Brantley on August 28, 2010 at 9:20am

I think you are on track and you might want to consider the concept of monitory democracy into the OpenGov end goals.

"In the age of monitory democracy, in contrast to the earlier eras of assembly democracy and representative democracy in territorial state form, many new mechanisms are mixed and combined with new ways of publicly monitoring and controlling the exercise of power. . .[F]or a variety of reasons that are related to public pressure and the need to reduce corruption and the abuse of power, conventional representative forms of democracy are coming to be supplemented (and hence complicated) by a variety of democratic innovations that are applied to organizations underneath and beyond governments. Others include public integrity mechanisms, congresses, blogging and other new forms of media scrutiny, as well as cross-border parliaments and open methods of co-ordination, of the kind practiced in the European Union. These inventions are unique to the age of monitory democracy, and they fundamentally alter both the political geometry and dynamics of democracy."

It seems that OpenGov is necessary whether government chooses to lead the OpenGov movement or have it forced upon government by its citizens.

Comment by Gov 2.0 Radio on August 27, 2010 at 8:27pm

Love it, and love Bowen's addition. I tweeted from my office's account today a great picture of SF City Hall, and someone did a RT and a mocking "your tax dollars at work" due to the grandiosity of the building. But it's not your tax dollars "at work" - it's YOUR BUILDING. There was a time in our country when more understood that, or we wouldn't have all the common property we enjoy today.

Comment by Bowen Moran on August 27, 2010 at 7:56pm

I think you're on track, but my end goal is somewhat diffferent. The measurement of 1 and 2; the indication that they've really happened is that people care about the day-to-day operations of government, and public servants are proud of the work we do again. No one goes to a government service and expects bureaucracy and bumbling, but instead expects and recieves passionate, personalized and proactive service.

That's my vision for the future.