If given a wish today, I’d be selfish and ask to be placed in the front row of all the discussions underway at the Personal Democracy Forum ‘09 underway in New York.

I am trying to keep up with the “tweets” around hash tag #pdf09 on TweetDeck that run in the double digits upon each refresh -pretty much an impossible task.  Many of the daily news media sites I read are also recapping PDF events.  I am appreciating the excitement and activity underway at the forum and finding myself caught up in the comments.

What is occurring at this forum is a gathering of informed, empowered and enthused people who are focused on, or have an interest in making democracy (governance and politics) more transparent primarily through digital, or Web 2.0 means.

With so many like-minded folks (including me) hearing from other like-minded folks including many with formal and implied leadership standing within this gathering, PDF, which stands for Personal Democracy Forum, is looking more like “Pretty Damn Fast” in getting Web 2.0 solutions fully integrated into the business of online governance.  The level of excitement is high and it would be very easy to get caught up in the furor.

One quote I read in an article today on NextGov from an attendee was particularly revealing of the types of discussions occurring.  It is from Ali Felski, senior designer with the wonderful organization Sunlight Foundation in Washington DC.  She was commenting on the state of web development in the federal government compared with what has been achieved in the private sector: “Industry is racing ahead and the gap is widening for government,” she stated.

While I have no disagreement with her statement, I’m thinking of the different constituencies served by these two industries.  There is a big difference between inclusive and all-inclusive.  When it comes to government, it should always be all-inclusive.  And the option for inclusion should always be our decision, not the organizations -a privilege enjoyed by Corporate America.

So, I hope those attending PDF ‘09 are keeping things in perspective by taking a step back every once in a while to survey the canvas upon which they are painting this new picture of democracy.

The reality is that many, many citizens are not even a part of this form of communication let alone the interaction that is being sought after.  According to the Pew Research Center, a number of adult Americans (37%) do not have broadband Internet connections, which is an important element to accessing, viewing and downloading much of the government data.  Then there is the matter of those citizens who simply do not have access to the Internet.

Still, I am very encouraged about the developments and dialog underway at PDF ‘09.

The term “Beltway Mentality” is used to imply that people living in Washington DC, particularly federal government officials and employees, are out of touch with citizens outside the metro area.  I hope this concept does not creep into PDF ‘09 and limit the thoughtful and enlightening discussions and ideas that are emerging there.

The Governor Mark  Sanford Situation

I’m thinking about South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and his situation and the response of the public and media. I wonder why, in the U.S., we (public/media) so vilify an unfaithful government official.

In all of these cases there is so much lying that what began as an act of immorality becomes an issue of that public official’s accountability to serve. Does lying about an affair make them unfit as a leader or just as a mate? Would there be less lying if our culture/mores were different?

I asked this on Facebook this morning and one response was pretty representative of the bunch:  I think as long as politicians continue to legislate our personal lives and personal choices, not to mention judge OUR “morality” about such lifestyles and choices, then they come off as utter hypocrites (not to mention just plain stupid) when they make the perceived “wrong” choices and behave “immorally.”

Am I reading in this comment that those who are tasked with legislating our lifestyles should have a higher degree of accountability than their constituents? If so, it makes sense. As stewards of public policy, government officials, especially the elected ones, are expected to be even more responsible –but more responsible than whom?

If our elected officials are merely a representation of the public they serve (and I know this is debatable), does this event and others like it say anything about society’s hypocrisy? What’s your take on this?

My first article with the online version of StateTech Magazine was published yesterday.  It is a brief discussion of the key challenges (data and technology) facing the soon (we hope) to be revised/repurposed Recovery.gov web site and administration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  Add to these two formidable challenges a strategy for citizen involvement, i.e., for dialog, not just for disclosure, and you have the makings of a Best Practice Gov 2.0 initiative.

I don’t expect the ARRA to achieve its full potential to include all the necessary trimmings for a true online democratic process:  access, structure, and standards for data, reporting, collaboration and attribution.  And that’s okay considering the strides it can and will make to advance G-G and G-C online collaboration.

After all, even if this historical initiatave surrounds the Internet, this is still about government and democratic processes and the inherent bureaucracy that we chose for its structure where things move incrementally, not at the speed of light.   I am looking forward to watching it unfold.

Today, NPR’s Morning Edition had a story about the State of Michigan using part of its American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds to pay what amounted to operating expenses of the state government; pretty much to backfill spending cuts it had made. 

 In effect, the federal program that was created to stimulate economic activity through the creation and retention of jobs will have some of those funds diverted to pay state government bills. 

 I am not signaling out Michigan.  NPR did.  However, the news report stated 43 states are using stimulus money to do the same.  This has some serious implications that touch on a number of issues ranging from gauging the success or failure of the $787 billion federal program, to how much say citizens have about how the money is spent if it’s not to help protect or create their jobs.  There is also the issue of accountability which President Obama stated upfront must be a key component throughout the process.  States and local governments are accountable for how they spend their stimulus money.  Yet, are they being held accountable in using the funds in this method?

 Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero said what Michigan is doing amounts to an “Anti-Stimulus Package” since funds will not be used to help the economy at the state or local levels.

 While there is still debate on what defines success of the ARRA, the general idea emerging is around the quality and quantity of jobs to be created or saved through the expended funds.  For example, if the State of “X” spent “$Y” amount of stimulus dollars to create/retain “#Z” jobs, then we could determine the cost to create those jobs and then use an econometric model to measure their economic impact to the local community and to the state thereby identifying some ROI. 

 But if the State of “X” has diverted, say 20% of stimulus money to pay for operations, then less funds would be available to stimulate jobs resulting in a higher cost percentage to create them with a lower number created and less economic impact (so my theory goes, because the base value of available funds decreased from 100% to 80%).

 If this becomes a standard practice, then after the funds are spent and the analysis of the ARRA begins, would the Administration be holding the bag for (theoretically) the high cost/low yield when it came to stimulating the economy?  Or would the buck stop at the state capitals?  If so, would the feds then be open to criticism for lack of oversight to ensure the money went to stimulate jobs and not pay bills?  What role, then does the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board have as an overseer in this case?

 And then there are the citizens whose money is being used.  Where do they fall in this game of checkers and what say have they in the way the funds are spent?  Is this government transparency?  I suppose it is.  Thanks, in part to the news media which reports this.  However, it’s no secret.  Perhaps what is more of an issue here is that of fiscal responsibility.  And that, arguably, was an issue even before the ARRA existed.  What are your ideas about how states are using stimulus money?

A New Look at Govt-Citizen Collaboration using Social Media (Part II)

I’ve learned a new lesson about blogging: never post “Part 1″ until you have written “Part 2.”  I meant to write this entry right after I posted the first part, but had to travel, complete project deliverables, watch college basketball tournaments (men and women), then Baseball season began, etc. 

Quick recap:  Part One discussed the challenge to convene meaningful online discussions at the national level using social media.  Good intentions are impacted (good and bad) when using social media tools.  The administrative challenge is due mainly to the lack of structure and standards in these solutions, especially when trying to present and maintain specific, topic-related discussions.

 I suggested that it might be a while before social media can provide the type of structured discussions or engagement experiences that citizens and government have in traditional town hall meetings that I referred to as formal dialog.  Informal is the casual, non-attributed, open, anonymous collaborations that occur within most social networking environments.  

 I asked the question, what does this formal dialog even look like online and how will government adopt standards and structures it has used for more than 225 years to capture this important democratic process of citizen contribution online?  I further suggested that online citizen discussions of national issues may best be facilitated at the state and local level. Now, on to fresh content…

 Therefore, do not expect to find a citizen engagement component at the federal Recovery.gov web site.  Yes, there is the opportunity for citizens to comment or ask questions, however, it’s a one-way interaction, or rather transaction - they ask for comments; you give them a comment (no one else sees or participates in either party’s exchange).

 There are a number of reasons why this won’t happen besides that it does not appear to be part of the vision of transparency or was in the original strategy, but rather, it just doesn’t make sense. Why? Because public conversations should occur where the dollars are being spent. 

 Facilitating a dialog around the spending of stimulus money and its affect on the public should be the responsibility of the receiving parties –state and local governments where they will have an impact.  The reason you are not seeing these online forums pop up on the many state and local “recovery” sites is because they are mostly cloned versions of the federal Recovery.gov site where the focus is on compiling data and pushing it out to the public to view.

 A primary reason why is it important for state and local governments to facilitate (directly or indirectly) an ongoing discussion with citizens throughout the lifecycle of stimulus spending is that it can determine the success or failure of the program.

 It is arguably not only fiscally responsible to empower the public as your potential eyes and ears as stimulus watchdogs, it is also a politically smart response to encourage it and make active civic engagement a reality throughout this initiative.

 Empowering citizens to have input, through ideas, suggestions, feedback and providing general observations and critiques about how the funds are spent and the impact they are making helps bridge the existing chasm between government-citizen communication.  It can also lead to increased civic participation for other government initiatives and serve as a model for what that collaboration looks like and how it will occur.

A New Look of Govt-Citizen Collaboration using Social Media (Part 1)

I recently read an interesting post on techPresident.com called “Government Needs Smart-sourcing, Not Crowdsourcing,” by Pete Peterson, executive director of Common Sense California.

 Pete’s post focused on the quality of the government-citizen (G-C) engagement and the impact large numbers of participants have on that quality.  In effect, Pete identifies shortcomings in using social media for national dialog (my words).

 (Quick Note:  If you have not picked up from my posts and site content, I am a huge proponent for using the Web and social media for civic engagement and improving public policy making.)

 He uses examples from the new Administration including the Citizens Briefing Book at Change.gov, and online town hall meeting at Whitehouse.gov.  I’m adding Recovery.gov to this group because, while still in its infancy, its current structure will also be problematic for citizen engagement. 

 Pete cites from these early examples where the use of social media solutions was to aide G-C dialog is that it became pretty apparent pretty quickly that the majority of ideas and topics are not representative of the public as a whole based on the results from conventional polling strategies.  In addition, many of the comments received on these sites tend to deviate from the intended subject matter and, instead, become a voice of special interests.  Pete asks a very important question about the government’s online engagement effort: “How will the Administration utilize America’s participation?”  I think these shortcomings place the Obama Administration in a tough position.

 I continue to be impressed and at the same time concerned about the Internet, specifically social media, and online G-C collaboration.  As a new, informal stream of communication between citizens and the public sector as an enhancement or alternative to traditional processes, by using social media, the Web has shown its potential to be a huge success.   As for delivering a valuable apparatus to help advance the process of formal dialog between the two groups, I’d say we may have a long way to go before we achieve success. 

 Why?  Because what makes the web successful as an open forum enabling masses of people to send/exchange information is also what’s prevented it from establishing a structured, meaningful environment where standards for submission, attribution and reporting are applied.  

 Throughout our nation’s history, there have always been many avenues for citizens to communicate or present their issues with public officials, both formal (structured) and informal (unstructured).  Each impacts policy making decisions. 

 By inviting all-comers to participate in a forum that enables information (not necessarily knowledge) to be transmitted at lightening speed and where messages (many times unsubstantiated or unrelated) can permeate and connect with diverse and disperse audiences with a keystroke, the Web and social media are an unmatched combination. 

 However, when there’s a need to have a structured forum for dialog and where there may be requirements for facilitation, administration, attribution, and/or reporting what can social media provide to continue this 225+ year tradition and requirement, especially on a national level?

 ”Talkin’ Loud and Sayin’ Nothing” is a funk song by the Godfather of Soul, James Brown.  I am wondering if this title might also apply to the challenge for social media, to solve that important online component of our democracy.  Admittedly, we are early in this evolutionary process and it’s quite exciting to hear and read all the thoughtful discussions and see the actual online engagements being attempted at all levels of government.

 Yet, consider this example:  You may hear people talking –and may even be a participant in the discussions– about a current public policy issue in your community.  You hear about it at work, in the news, at the gym, at church, on the kid’s soccer field, across the neighbor’s hedge, etc.  These are the types of conversations social media can capture: many different discussions occurring in many different venues. But, there will be a public meeting scheduled at city hall for citizens and policy makers to share information and present ideas.  How will social media capture the conversations happening at this venue where the conversations go from casual to formal?

 Bringing Order out of Chaos (Part 2) will explore two questions:

What will/does formal look like in structure, standards and reporting that not only makes it transparent, but also meaningful?

Would convening public discussion of national policy issues online be more effective if they were facilitated and administered at the local level?

Transparency.  It’s the buzz word around the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the planned disbursement, tracking and reporting of the $787 billion federal stimulus package to states.  Every state and many local jurisdictions have responded in some way to the transparency requirements (page 9) outlined by the federal government.  State and local stimulus Czars, special work teams, and dedicated web sites or pages have sprung up to administer their allocation and to inform citizens how the program will be managed in their respective jurisdiction. 

 As transparency can be defined as an offering of disclosure, then it appears the effort and commitment will be there.  However, if you want to define the term in a democratic sense, which for this major initiative, it certainly should be, have the states and feds gone far enough in being truly transparent?

 In a democracy, transparency should be defined as disclosure and discussion.

 Even Allan Holmes, the executive editor of NextGov.com, a wonderful Web site I rely on for worthy news and information, asked in his column yesterday “What Does Transparency Look Like?”  But (IMHO) Mr. Holmes is showing his IT side and misses this important point.  It’s not just about structuring the data when talking about government transparency.

 Let’s face it, there is something hollow, if not wrong, about being invited to a seat at the table, and then presented with information and data about a project that has yet to be administered (and one that’s using your money) and then not allowed to collaborate with those in charge of carrying it out.  An accurate description?  It’s pretty close.

 As I addressed in an earlier blog, while the federal government site, Recovery.gov solicits comments from citizens, it does not explain how those comments will be used and it does not appear comments will be published for other citizens to read.  It really comes down to meeting expectations –on both sides.

 Other states have followed the same pattern.  Their web presence will be a place for data to be published and allow for citizens to track and review progress.  While this action deserves a loud applause, there still needs to be more attention paid to citizen outreach and input.

 Virginia and Wisconsin are asking citizens to contribute ideas about how the state should spend some of their stimulus funds, yet there is no commitment that after this initial information exchange, is there an intention or commitment to make it an ongoing collaboration between government and citizens.

 How important is it to get this discussion component right?  By including an element that allows government and citizens to interact along with the already planned disclosure of content will move the transparency needle from one end of the democracy spectrum to the other.  It will enable citizens and stakeholders to go from being spectators in this critically important national initiative to offering them the opportunity to be active participants. And that’s what democracy is all about.  What do you think?

An assistant attorney general in the Commonwealth of Kentucky ruled against a state agency that provided a Web address to a couple seeking a copy of a school policy.  I’m assuming the conversation between the parents and the school administrator went something like this:

 Parents:  “Can we get a copy of the school’s policy?” 

School Administrator:  “No problem.  Just go to ‘www.schoolwebsite.edu’ and download the PDF file. Next question?”

 Sounds pretty basic, right?  However, according to the Kentucky attorney general’s office the school district violated state law by not providing a hard copy of a policies and procedures manual to parents who requested it.   Assistant Attorney General Amye L. Bensenhaver said that was a clear violation of state law.  She stated that some people may not have computers or the skills to download the requested records electronically.

 More to the Story

 I contacted Ms. Bensenhaver to learn more about her ruling.  After all, this isn’t the 90s when the Digital Divide (which addresses the issue of ownership or access to computers or the Internet between people who do and those who do not) was an e-government opponent’s number one issue.  Today, you hardly hear about the DD.  I’ve even seen the term re-branded as “Digital Divide 2.0” which doesn’t address the early-defined gap between people having the hardware or not, but rather how those who have the hardware and technology aren’t using it to advance their skills and education at the same pace of people in competing nations.

 Amye did clarify an important point:  The exchange was not an informal dialog, or Q/A like I had assumed.  Rather, the couple had made a formal, written request citing KY Open Records laws.  She said based on KY law, the couple should have received a hard copy of the document or documents (along with any copying charges that the agency has the option to include or not).

 This event is an example of a wider issue that we will have to address at all levels of government.  For many of us who are online daily using email, “tweeting,’ or active in our social networks, we don’t understand the big deal.  Today, access to computers is ubiquitous, isn’t it?  Broadband is widely available, and wireless access continues to grow.  Even the cost of owning the technology is also comparatively affordable.  So why didn’t this couple (if they did not have a computer or Internet access), go to the library and either download the document or ask one of the librarians to assist them?  For one reason, and affirmed by the AG, they didn’t have to.

 The “Opportunity Cost”

 Remove the argument of computer/internet access.  Isn’t the question here really about the “opportunity cost” to citizens who wish to interact with a public institution?  Throughout history, there has always been a “cost” to citizens for public involvement.  For example, consider the public meeting.  Government doesn’t go door-to-door to ensure each citizen has access to information and to provide them the opportunity to contribute their thoughts. 

 As part of our civic duty, citizens have to make the effort to be informed and to participate.  That means taking time from our day, spending the gas money to travel to the public meeting, paying for parking, and so on.  Even sitting in front of you computer researching the content online is a part of your monthly Internet bill.

 While I have not seen any other rulings like this, I wonder if there will be more to come as governments rush to publish content to the Web to make it easier for citizens to find it and, theoretically, streamlining old processes and reducing the cost to both (and to the environment). 

 Implication for Recovery.gov?

 I’m thinking about the newly launched Recovery.gov, the federal Web site created by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to include all reports on the progress of public expenditures to programs and services that will be funded across the nation.  Under section 1523, page 177, and the act states:

 PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.- (A) IN GENERAL.-All reports submitted under this subsection shall be made publicly available and posted on the website established by section 1526.

 While it says “made publicly available and posted…,” I assume that means only electronically and for the purpose of reading or for downloading.  Dropping the other shoe will occur when an organization or a citizen cites a state open records law or the FOIA and requests hard copies of the online reports.  Stay tuned.  This new/old Digital Divide issue may just come up again, and on a much larger scale.

I don’t know.  In his video introduction of Recovery.gov, President Obama states, “We’re counting on your participation.”  What does he mean?

I’ve been through Recovery.gov.  I am impressed by the magnitude of this initiative and what is to come.  However, I am not impressed as a citizen or someone familiar with online citizen engagement models.  I hope I am wrong, but I don’t believe I am. 

I don’t want to come off in this blog as being too critical either.  Rather I hope my comments will be construed as constructive.  It’s mainly because I know more can be done to make Recovery.gov better, more meaningful –more interactive and more engaging.  And like others who followed the amazing online candidacy of Barack Obama, my expectations for this administration are very high for innovation in this area.

So here it goes:

Right now, Recovery.gov looks like it will become a very large, pre-emptive and possibly aggressive Open Records repository.  Instead of millions of citizens filing request to view the progress of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, government work teams will be posting content here and saving citizens and government agencies the time and trouble to process those requests.

From experience in online government-citizen engagements, one important feature is missing from the home page that is critically important: an explanation of the expectations for citizen involvement and for government transparency.

It boils down to making promises and keeping promises. It’s important for government to create clarity for how information will be posted and how public comment/input will be collected and used by project team.  And it should be called out, clearly visible and one of the first things I want to read on the site.  I did not see it.  However, I did find tucked away in the FAQs the following:

Q: I want to help. What can I do?
A: Over the course of the spring, increasing amounts of information will become available on Recovery.gov that will show where the money is going. We are counting on you to peruse that information and tell us what you find. Please share your stories, your ideas, and your comments. They will then be sent to the Board for their review.

“Tell us what you find.”  Hmmm…really?   And the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board will “review” your comments and do….what?

As for transparency, another important point is to establish the rules early and develop a full plan for “Information Rights Management.”  What content is public and what is limited access for project teams, e.g., the Board or the federal agencies?  Who should/will have access and to what information?  Who has authority to make decisions to publish content. 

What will happen with submitted comments?  Will they be posted for others to read or just responded to that individual? 

What about the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board established by the Act?  How transparent will their work and activities be?  Will I be able to follow their meetings, read minutes, watch video or listen to proceedings.  Will a calendar of their meetings be included in the timeline along with notices or news releases? 

After all, this is the oversight board of inspectors general (”the watchdogs of government” according to the FAQs) who have responsibility for overseeing Federal agencies to “ensure that there is transparency and accountability for the expenditure of recovery funds.”

What measurements will be used for success?  I read the bulleted list of goals, but they are the spending goals and qualitative goals.  It did mention job creation.  I did view the map that cited the number of jobs to be saved or created state by state. 

Okay.  So I have a few issues with Recovery.gov.  Well, I also have an idea  to improve it.  So far this initiative feels too centralized on such a grave matter that involves all government branches, all levels of government, and all American citizens.  It needs to actively involve others. 

For example, where is Congress and where are my representatives?  Will they be involved in the national dialog and at the constituent level?  I’d like to see more “in this together” dialog; though I don’t expect to see that from the GOP, yet, based on the voting in the House and Senate for the bill.

Where are the states?  And this is personal: I want a local version of Recovery.org that has been signed off by my governor and the legislature where content is provided by their branches and has a grassroots appeal for where and how the billions received by my state will be targeted and managed. 

I’d also like to see an online community of citizens across my state talking about our needs and helping direct our state government on the best use of those funds.  So, I am looking forward to a Recovery.gov/florida, and so on.  Governor Crist?

“Hello. My name is Dan Bevarly. I live at 206 Pleasant View Avenue. My zip code is 40206. I’d like to speak to the Downtown Action plan that is being presented here this evening…”

At 145 characters and still w/o my statement, you can be sure this is not a “tweet” on Twitter. It’s not a blog post or an email. Actually, it was provided verbally, and became part of the public record for citizen comments for the (fictitious) Downtown Action Plan initiative in my community. Hopefully, the elected and appointed public officials in attendance will take it into consideration as they decide policy on the project.

Can anyone show me where that kind of formal exchange between citizens and government is occurring today on the Web? Not just some of the components. I mean from “A-Z”: the structure, the standards, the attribution, the recording and the reporting.

We hear more and more about examples of government utilizing Web 2.0 to demonstrate transparency and to encourage more openness to and involvement from citizens. But what about this basic, fundamental step in our republic’s democratic process? Have we skipped “Gov 1.0” and gone straight to adopting ”2.0?”

As (some) governments dive into social media technologies as a way to connect with their citizens, what are the reasons for doing it and what do they want to accomplish? If it’s to engage their citizens, then where are they having success? Collecting feedback through YouTube? I doubt it. You should see some of the anonymous comments (if any) left on some of these government-sponsored YT pages. Some are shocking and would get you thrown in jail if spoken aloud at a public meeting. Through email? Show me a public official who has gone through their inbox folder and I’ll show you an over-stuffed “trash” folder. Through written letters? While people still do this, it is a dying art form not practiced enouhg by the collective in most cases to be effective (except in some controversial cases).

Don’t get me wrong. I am for more civic engagement, more transparency, and more ways to increase participatory government. Yet, there exists a wide chasm between citizens and their government that has deteriorated the relationship to a “we” and “them” mindset instead of a being a representation of the other.  Continuing to publish content, albeit in creative formats, is still not going to help get back to the business of meaningful governance.

Thomas Jefferson said, “Information is the currency of democracy.” However, as messages move today at the speed of light, where are the checks and balances, the best practices, the proven models where a rich dialog and exchange of ideas between citizens and their government led to more informed decision making? Where can we find examples?  I’d like to hear about them and so would others.