In “Twilight at Monticello,” author Alan Pell Crawford recounts Thomas Jefferson’s fear that “America was fast becoming a republic in name only, where power may have been derived from the people, but where they possessed it ‘only on the days of their elections.’ After this it is the property of their rulers.”

President Obama’s first State of the Union address is history.  However, the many initiatives he outlined are all about the Union’s future: health care, security, the economy, jobs and unemployment, and education to name a few.  While one not-so-obvious challenge will be to find ways to fund their solutions, another and more disconcerting challenge is whether Congress can put forth a concerted and cooperative effort from its two major parties to advance these concepts into public policies. 

Unfortunately, this second challenge is real and will not only test the mettle of our federally elected officials but also the very fabric of our democratic process.  Will members of Congress face up to their responsibilities as representatives of the electorate to do what is right?  To do so, means finding common ground through compromise in order to build a consensus or bi-partisan majority.  Or will they delay action or even ignore their responsibility and instead pursue a path of party power over public policy?

Democrats want to maintain their advantage in both chambers; even secure a filibuster-proof majority that enables them to advance their party’s agenda regardless of the opposition.  Republicans seek to diminish the Democrat’s power, even hoping to overturn it and become the party of power.  Either of the GOP’s goals is achievable through the upcoming midterm elections.  The GOP’s hopes have been elevated with the recent election of Scott Brown, as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ new Senator.

How can one member of Congress –one percent of the total– affect the balance of power and public policy for millions of Americans?  When political parties, and their elected officials are focused more on might instead of right. 

With the voters of Massachusetts changing their Senate seat from one party to the other, they showed us (and to the GOP) something about the American public in general: voters are heavily influenced by and fixated on current events and generally cast their vote based on a short attention span.  This special election was more about voting on the moment than on historical achievements, tradition or on potential long term benefits.

This election, along with the current state of the economy, continued job losses, an ongoing war and congressional gridlock (issues argued ad nauseam that they all existed prior to the Obama Administration taking office) provide more fuel for the Republicans to believe they could upend the Democrats’ hold on Congress.  And by sticking along party lines which may mean doing nothing to advance the Administration’s planned federal policies, the GOP may have found an effective strategy to achieve more power, and arguably at the expense of the American public.

Even President Obama recognized the challenge posed by this current state of political struggle.  During his YouTube Interview on Monday in response to a citizen’s question on health care reform, the president cited the election of Scott Brown and responded that “…the way the rules work, it takes 60 votes, and we only have 59…” 

In this case, the president is expecting the congressional vote to be exclusively along party lines.  If so, are we to understand not one person from either party will cross over party lines to support or oppose this historical and important legislation?

Based on events and actions (inactions?) it appears that the GOP and the DNC have drawn their battle lines and the war of “Might over Right” is in full swing. 

Now I am not so naïve –and neither are most Americans– to not to expect that the goal of the minority party is be the majority party and the goal of the majority party is to retain its position.  But these are not “business as usual” times in our nation. 

When far reaching, reform policies are needed to restart, reduce, and reallocate, there has to be bipartisan agreement for those policies.  If not, the transformational changes usually needed in times of crises will be accomplished through partisan politics and by the party in power.  And when the inevitable changing of the guard occurs, those changes will be diminished or even reversed by their successors. 

This flaw of our democratic process is not the preference, nor is in the best interest of the American public or the nation.

Transparency, open government, e-government, Gov 2.0 are all terms to describe government’s new relationship with citizens in the age of the Internet, particularly using the social media technology solutions of Web 2.0.  Many believe in its promise to make government more approachable and more navigable via the Internet by improving access to the governance process and programs and services. 

One objective is to help citizens find information, a/k/a content, and be able to process it as they want or need.  Another purpose is to enable some form of structured electronic government-citizen and citizen-government dialog between the two parties.

However, a few years into this new form of online democracy, many obstacles and hurdles have been identified making it difficult for government and citizens to “find” each other, let alone interact.  Some of the causes are technical, while others are social. Hence, “new relationship” may not be the correct word.  Instead, this new association may look more like a “joint venture”; and that’s not necessarily a good thing.

While the technology has provided new forms of communication and information sharing —and arguably, in formats that meet citizens’ growing preferences and expectations for interaction— it has been slowed, detoured, ignored, even rejected in some cases.  This is primarily due to the historical, legal and political nature of the government-citizen relationship –a status quo existing in this nation since its beginning. 

These continued challenges are especially evident (and frustrating) when compared to the new technologies’ welcome adoption in the private sector for interaction between business and consumers, and in our personal lives among our friends and family.

Due to the tireless efforts of men and women in the public sector who mostly find they are paddling against the current, thousands of dedicated government employees believe they are doing the right thing to “open” as much of their content to the public as physically and legally possible.  So with this increasing gain of momentum, it’s worth pausing to take a read on the progress.  While it may be the right thing to do, are we moving in the right direction? That is, while all these “apps for democracy” are assumed to be a good thing, are they necessarily what are being sought after by the general public first or foremost from this new relationship structure? 

By bringing up the open data component of open government, let’s be mindful that government is neither a business nor a product. So while having the ability to interact with or manipulate its data (e.g., content) may advance thoughtful policy making, have we yet to decide on a strategy or effective structure to take care of the first order of business: engagement?  Or are we redirecting our energies to low hanging fruit because it’s there and we have some technology that lets us work with it?

You may not agree with me, but I have an idea that we have some restless natives out there who require attention.  When town hall meetings that are intended to be education forums for citizens to learn about and discuss health care reform (one of the most important public policy debates of our time)  turn into nothing but a physical shouting match; or when a Massachusetts senate race expected to be a shoe-in for the Democrat nominee results in a GOP victory (in Massachusetts!); and subsequently, when our elected leaders suggest the only way to ensure consensus is to have a filibuster-proof majority (what ever happened to compromise?), then its time to reevaluate the basic relationships that exist between government and its citizens and among the government leaders themselves. 

These relationships are strained, perhaps even rebellious. What marriage counselor wouldn’t love to get these two parties on her couch?  Government: “Not only does she (citizens) expect me to solve all her problems, she’s also lost all her trust in me.”  Citizens: “He (government) doesn’t do anything but sit around complaining about others; then when some stranger gives him special interest; he’s off to take care of their needs and ignores all of mine.”

Usually, the first recommendation to help mend the friction between the feuding parties is to find some common ground. You got it: communicate.  That’s talk it out, not “text it out”.  It’s the personal touch and approach that’s needed.  In this case, it’s more about schmoozing and showing an interest in others.  Politicians know this. Why do they forget or ignore it when they take office or become a public official?

So, when it comes to the use of technology in this equation, let’s set aside, for now, the use of technology as an end, and use it as a means to start improving the dialog and the relationship between citizens and government, and minimizing partisan politics in policy making.  For any relationship to be productive, the parties have to be able to get along, before they can expect to go along. Web 2.0 technologies should be focused to achieve that goal first.

There are some great “year-end” blog posts and articles reviewing e-Gov, or government via the Internet.  This year, it is mostly about Gov 2.0 — stories or benchmarks for expanding collaborative technologies of Web 2.0 across the public sector.   

Source: IBM

 All of these articles come from practitioners, intended for reading/discussion among other practitioners.  What’s missing? How about a citizen’s angle?  If John or Jane Q. Public were to create a “2009 Gov 2.0 List,” what would they include?

 Note: The following list is NOT intended as a criticism nor does it discount the innovative and brilliant efforts that have been made in local, state and federal government agencies by dedicated and hard working government employees (of which I was once a proud member) who are striving to improve government-citizen engagement.  Rather it is a list that addresses challenges that still exist and should be kept in mind of as we (all of us) continue to bridge the great chasm between government and the people it was formed to serve.

 Jane and John Q. Public’s “Year-End Gov 2.0 List”

 1. Where did my social network go?

 We were so inspired by the social networks created in 2008 by the major political candidates.  We joined many groups and collaborated with people across the country to learn about the issues while sharing our thoughts and ideas.  Then, our candidate was elected and our social network along with its extensive list of contacts no longer existed.  Even the ease to message with fellow group members and the candidate dissolved and we were left with only email or a long form to fill out to be able to communicate. What was once a thriving horizontal form of collaboration with my candidate and my fellow citizens has now become a vertical, mostly one-way form of communication with my elected official.  Why?

 2. Do you really mean “Contact me?”

 To our elected officials who have a “contact me” icon on your page, please know that we will actually click on it and go through the laborious process to complete your form in order to communicate with you.  So, instead of a pop up message that states you “get so much email from citizens” that you “only respond to (your) constituents” after we have taken 20-30 minutes to construct a thoughtful message to you, it would be better to know this up front before we dedicate that much time.  Also know that while we are not a direct constituent of yours, that you are a member of a committee that will influence or vote on a policy or rule that affects us, our families or our districts (even though you may not be our representative).

  3. How can you expect broad support from those of us without Broadband?

 For all the cool web sites and collaborative applications that tout online transparency, access, and participation, we can’t access them without a broadband connection and from what we understand, some 37% of the nation’s homes are in the same boat.  

  4. Our phone is a talking device – why doesn’t that work?

 We think all the mobile apps to connect with government to report issues and then even be notified that they are being addressed are cool and innovative.  But our phones aren’t “smart” and cannot connect to the web or house these applications.  However, it will let us place a call to someone and tell them the same thing.  Still, it appears the human voice (when it’s not on hold or going through a series of voice prompts) is less powerful than the key pad to connect to and receive a response from government when addressing communiqués received from citizens.

  5. Online democracy; but not really

 For those governing bodies that broadcast their public meetings, yet require the public to be there in order to participate, stop teasing us.  Electronically, you send a notice of the meeting and an agenda; even a link to a live stream of the event to watch it in real time.  But, for citizens who want to participate in the meeting by offering comment on an agenda item or another public issue, we are required to be there in person.  That means, having to get in our cars and drive to the actual venue; speak at the appointed time and for the specific time allotted.  We applaud the effort to replicate your public meeting online, just replicate all of it, including the part for the public to participate.

 6. We are “Generation Now (and forever)”

 Is there a realization in government like in the private sector that now and forever the public’s preference for communicating and sharing information has changed and that there are citizens of voting age who are also “cradle to grave” digital users?  And the appropriate response from government (considering they want to connect with us and engage us) should be to make it a high priority to restructure (not reinvent) its engagement processes based on these new preferences and expectations?

 7. We want to feel “special” too.

 Even if we had access to and expertise in all the cool Gov 2.0 solutions available and using the most cutting edge devices available, we still lack real interest in participating in our government and its policy making processes.  This feeling of apathy is due primarily to a belief that government has become more responsive and responsible to special interests groups than to individual citizens, and that we believe we cannot influence them even if we were to have access to them.  We think if this challenge is not part of the overall solution, then when all of this Gov 2.0 dust settles there will be a surplus of great technology tools and innovative processes available but that no one outside of government will be using them. 

 Check that.  Special interest reps will be using (and exploiting) them and the chasm created between government and its citizens over the last 50 years will be even wider with even less people having access to those individuals they elected.

Is the federal government up to the challenge of citizen engagement with the public on an individual basis?  Is it too much to expect an institution with an annual budget of three trillion dollars and as the nation’s largest employer with close to two million employees ready to go one-on-one with John or Jane Q. Public?  If so, are they equipped to do so, and do they really want to?

On a federal level, it may be asking too much to think open government and open governance can be synonymous.  What’s the difference between the two?  To write this post, I consider open government as the government establishing a reliable structure and a capability to provide access to information and communication in a standardize manner across the executive branch.  Open governance is the practice of facilitating individual and group dialog in collaborative exchanges that enables citizens to advance and initiate discussions as well as respond to questions and conversations originated by government.

In other words, open government is opening your home to the general public.  Open governance allows them to rearrange the furniture as they see fit. 

 We are sitting on the “Gov 2.0 Train” that has already left the station bound for who knows where.  There is a noted degree of sincerity by the men and women who work for the federal government who blog, tweet and speak about the need for open government.  On a daily basis, these employees put forth policies and efforts to advance this idea. 

 Yet, I am not convinced the executive and legislative branches really want to (or even can) have the level of exposure or accountability based on the definition of open governance described above or on the same level that state and particularly local governments have with their constituents. 

 As the evidence has yet to jell around capacity and desire, an argument can be made that there is a very big difference between open government and open governance.  This is a fair and timely statement considering the recent announcement of President Obama’s Open Government Initiative.

 Much credit is due this administration for its efforts to make government more open, inclusive and responsive to its citizens.  Since the beginning of the Obama Administration there has been a pledge for government transparency and open government.  The president’s first executive order focused on open government and this month, the Whitehouse launched the Open Government Initiative  “designed to hardwire accountability and accessibility into government institutions.”  It also published this month, a 28-page Report to the American People on the same topic.

 The contents of these documents support further discussion and inspection of the distinctions of the two concepts. Another important distinction to be made is that open government directives do not require what we have come to call Web 2.0 solutions to be successful.  However, open governance will require the collaborative technologies provided in Web 2.0 solutions to succeed.  Why?

 Open government has to do with the institution itself and its structure, or mechanics. Open governance has to do with its processes.  While the Internet has become the common denominator to both concepts, the Administration’s immediate goal is open government while citizens and stakeholders hope for open governance –and may be expecting they are one in the same. 

 The memorandum outlines three goals that have been incorporated into the strategies and execution: Transparency, Participation and Collaboration. President Obama believes government should be all three.

 He touches upon concepts of open government and open governance in his directive.  By using “should” or “will,” one can distinguish between what is open government and what is open governance.  Using “will” is in the directives the government can deliver.  The “should” directives will require a government that’s actively engaged with citizens and operating on a different level of collaboration, and using methods that have yet to be practiced across the agencies. 

 What I am hearing and reading in these communiqués is the Administration distinguishes between open government and open governance; and probably for valid reasons around capacity and desire.  If this is the case, we should not expect to have open governance until we reach the level of open government outlined in the president’s directive.

 Unfortunately, this will only continue the ongoing debate of transparency, participation and collaboration and what they look like online.  However, there have been a growing number of blog posts that Gov 2.0 train has been slowed or is stalled.  This perception (or reality) may be due, in part, to the seemingly repetitive and recycled discussions of Gov 2.0 as defined as Open Government, i.e., accomplishing the same agreed upon goal of organizing, providing and accessing content, just using different tools and technologies to achieve that result.

 Widespread, active public engagement is the Holy Grail of Open Governance.  But, we have to have public interest first, and that component can be advanced in the open governance design/build.  In a recent Twitter feed on this subject @DavidForbes posted a wise “tweet” saying, “…without tackling the cultural factors involved, will end up w/ same mess, just w/ fancier tools.”  I fully understand that assessment.

 We need to start or expand the discussions of Open Governance.  Not as Open Government Part II, but as a main component of the entire challenge and how that will be solved through open government.  That is where the public really gets engaged.  That is where the real value, or ROI, of online government and democracy will be realized.

Florida Justice Summit brings together traditional methods and new technology to create and build an online community

I had the pleasure to attend the first Florida Justice Summit on Monday/Tuesday (11/16-17) in Tampa.  The summit was hosted by the Collins Center for Public Policy.  The Collins Center is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that finds “smart solutions to important issues facing the people of Florida and the nation.”

This post is not necessarily about the topic of justice reform, but rather about how the Collins Center successfully converged conventional methods to connect, collaborate and build relationships with emerging communication technologies using the Internet and Web 2.0 solutions .  The result increased the reach and footprint of the conference and created a foundation from which to build a community around this important policy issue.

 The goal of the summit was to pull back the curtain and openly discuss the many challenges; minimize or remove existing agency “silos” that exist; and, motivate folks to become activists, especially those who can influence and make public policies.

 What I thought was most impressive at the summit was the Collins Center’s strategy to use the two day event as a kick start to facilitate an ongoing conversation and collaboration among the government agencies, businesses and the citizens of Florida using a traditional gathering with social media.  They were successful in pulling off a well-attended and publicized event while replicating that experience online where the summit will continue to “convene” and advance the dialog that began in Tampa.

Some examples about how they created a textbook case that can/should be replicated by other organizations included using their own web site, which is also a social network, along with other, free social networking sites and tools.

1. Live video streaming.  The Collins Center used USTREAM to broadcast the event and the many presentations.  In addition to using UStream, they embedded the live broadcast in their web site.  All the presentations will continue to be available for viewing. 
2. Twitter.  The Collins Center’s Twitter handle is @CollinsCenter.  They, along with others, tweeted throughout the conference and used the hashtag #smartjustice to organize an ongoing stream of tweets. 
3. Interactive Feedback.  At the summit, five “whiteboards” were set up listing a specific topic about justice reform.  Attendees were asked to write their ideas, suggestions and comments about those topics.  On their web site, the Collins Center created five public “forums” that replicated this exercise.  People attending could expand upon their comments and the forums are also available to anyone visiting their social network.  They will continue to be available for posting and discussion. 
4. Presentations.  Besides the presentations being streamed live and video-taped and posted on the Collins Web site, the Center has included the power point presentations to their Web site for viewing or downloading.  
5. Knowledge Building.  Having a distinguished number of high level public officials (appointed and elected) and business leaders in the same place and at the same time, the Collins Center conducted a number of professionally video taped interviews, as well as using on-the-fly handhelds, to tap their knowledge, perspectives and ideas and will add them to the Collins Web site, their Facebook page and to their YouTube account.
6.  Building a Community.  Because the Collins Center used their social networking solution to register people for the Justice Summit, they were able to easily capture contact information on hundreds of people interested in this topic thereby creating an “instant community” of members in which they plan to stay connected.

 What are the next steps now that the Justice Summit has adjourned?  The Collins Center plans to continue to facilitate the discussion around this important issue.  By making all of this content and interaction easily available while soliciting and adding more content and input from people, the Collins Center will provide the public with a transparent process that easily enables further discussion and education. 

While the attendees were of a high caliber, there are hundreds of other government agency directors and staff, business leaders, and elected officials who did not attend, but will probably hear about it directly or indirectly.  Thanks to the Collins Center, they will have a central location and data repository to visit online to watch, hear, view and even participate (through the forums, for example) in just about the same way as those who attended the summit.

 In closing, let me make just a comment or two about justice reform.  About 300 attendees from the public and private sector attended the Florida Justice Summit to discuss “smart justice reform,” to identify or amplify the issues and challenges facing the state and its citizens.  In Florida and in many other states the cost to taxpayers for justice administration is high and continues to climb without any real evidence of success.  For example, one dollar in 11 spent by the state goes to the criminal justice system and most of that goes to maintain prisons and inmates.

  It was obvious that the challenges are not just about public safety but about money –and that impacts everything.  In a time of state economic crises; when revenues are not there and you have, in many cases, early inmate release back into the community as a cost-saving measure (and let’s face it, 95% of people in jails and prisons will be released back into society), it is important now to develop meaningful treatment programs not lock-up programs.  It is not about being “soft” on crime, but being “smart” on crime, and the Collins Center and the people of Florida are showing a real interest to be just that.

Washington Post Staff Writer Dan Balz provided an analysis of Tuesday’s elections across the country.  His story is titled “Contests serve as warning to Democrats: It’s not 2008 anymore.” 

Using the outcomes of two gubernatorial elections (New Jersey and Virginia), Dan summarized that yesterday’s elections “demonstrated that, at this point, Republicans have the more energized constituency heading into next year’s midterm elections.”  He’s not alone in his analysis.  Hundreds of other media and political pundits are talking and writing the same subject matter.

Now I’m not challenging any party or anybody as to which major party has the upper hand at this point.  What I find intriguing, thanks mostly to the constant pounding by the news media, are claims that in just 11 months into President Obama’s administration –an administration that took over a Whitehouse with so much baggage that US Airways could have turned a profit from this one passenger– the nation’s electorate has thrown up its hands or thrown down the gauntlet, expressing dissatisfaction, perhaps even disproval in the direction the administration is heading.  Or so say the press.  Are the people really saying that?

It’s a far analysis –not by the votes, but by the circumstances surrounding voters casting their ballots.  People are concerned about the economy, nay, about their quality of life and that it is not improving; that healthcare costs and all its problems will not be overhauled and fixed; and, that we will continue to spend more money and lose more American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq with nothing to show for it, and that NASA won’t land a manned spaceship on Mars (Kidding – I just threw that one in there). 

So they take a stand on Election Day. Voting is empowering.  It allows us to do two things: 1) to express our satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a candidate or party; and, 2) to make changes in our elected officials and to remove or affirm the party in charge.

But Tuesday’s voting was about state elections where small collective voices and sentiment are being used to interpret the nation as a whole.  My idea is that this is more about the current situation, or rather about a specific point in time and does not actually represent the continuum.  Perhaps it is about the candidate as a person, and not directly aimed at the party.  It is about people empowered with taking an option or chosing the alternative and taking it.  It is a snapshot as opposed to an epic production.

Apparently independent voters determined these elections as the party members stayed loyal.  However, in 2008, it was a much different scenario.  That year, voters looked back and considered an eight year cycle that included two full terms of leadership and weighed the costs versus benefits.  The GOP saw an exodus of voters from their ranks.  That is not the case here. 

Unfortunately, our society has become accustomed to an on-demand world.  We make and change our decisions quickly based on information at hand, valid or not.  Yet government’s ability to make needed, sweeping changes in policy or direction is not immediate.  It is at best, gradual.  And when it comes to leadership, unfortunately, it’s not about who is responsible for creating the mess, but who’s holding the mop to clean it up. 

Whoever said, “Success has many parents, but failure is an orphan” has aptly described the current state of the Obama Administration.  It’s pretty safe to say that the honeymoon is over.  But, that doesn’t mean the only alternative now is to divorce.

Credit: The Sacramento Bee sacbee.com

Election Day.  Let’s not forget to exercise our privilege as citizens to cast our vote today.  Pay special attention to not only the candidates but any referendums or amendments that may be on your ballot.  Unfortunately, with the reality of low voter turnouts, you may be voting or not voting for far reaching policy decisions that can have a dramatic effect on your state or community. 

A few years ago in my city, our structure of government was changed from a strong mayor/council to a city manager form of government with a 12% turnout.  Good or bad, that is a dramatic change in our governance system that was determined by such a small amount of voters.

Recently, the council just extracted what “power” was left in the mayor’s position to put it on par with the other council members (salary and responsibilities).  So much for leadership; so much for the city’s figurehead.

This is an important day.  Ensure the elective process is represented by the constituency.  Even better, citizens should prepare long in advance to participate by being knowledgeable of the issues and the candidates.

There is some exciting news occurring today in the world of Gov 2.0.  If you haven’t read one of the hundreds of online outlets or caught one of the hundreds of “tweets” about what’s occurring, two Gov 2.0 service providers, GovLoop and GovDelivery are joining forces to compliment their Web and collaboration service delivery to government employees, government agencies and citizens.

You can read a full spectrum of services at each group’s web sites so I won’t rehash those details.  What I would comment on is consideration about what this means to advancing the concept of Gov 2.0 across local, state and federal governments.  As far as that movement goes, this union will be an accelerator to promote and engage those of us who delve into the practice of government transformation on a daily basis; whether we are practitioners, consultants or just gov/web 2.0 “wonkies.” 

 It’s not hard to find information or people to connect with to learn, discuss, debate or share ideas on the current and future state of government and democracy in the age of the Internet.  What I am going to watch for is how this marriage impacts Gov 2.0 moving from concept, beyond hit and miss practices, and ingraining itself into the daily processes of government and citizen collaboration for public policy making and cost-effective administration.  That means affecting all types of online communication including G-C/C-G/G-G and C-C. 

 Understanding the Web is not a replacement for conventional communication between and among government and citizens, however, by using it effectively -through structure, standards and accountability– it certainly can help close the chasm and bring government and citizens together. Then, we can have meaningful, representative collaboration to address and solve the many social and economic challenges facing the public and the public sector.

 So let’s watch where this merger goes.  Better yet, let’s participate in it to help get it there.

I just read NSCL’s Gene Rose’s post in the State Thicket, “Are Budget Challenges Affecting Public’s Satisfaction with State Governments?” 

Gene comments on the recent report from the Pew Research for the People & the Press and its finding that there is a sharp decline from 2008 numbers in the public’s opinion of their state government. 

NCSL took Pew’s findings and compared them to their own surveys and focuses on the possible cause being the widening budget gaps that have strapped state government agencies, programs and services.  However, the Pew report did note a positive shift in the public’s perception of the federal government.  I suggest that is the result of having a new administration promoting its campaign of “hope.”

What I focused on as the most interesting part of the Gene’s post was the very last sentence: “Local governments continue to have the best ratings of the three groups (federal state local), with 60 percent being favorable and 32 percent unfavorable, both numbers down slightly from last year.”

Why do you think local government would have the most favorable rating among these three levels of government?  My idea is that it’s all about connectivity –the connection between government and its citizens, and the benefits that arise from that. 

Benefits such as a citizens having a sense of community as a unit; being informed about government affairs (whether that information is provided by the government or from the news media, or from your offline social network); being able to obtain information if wanted, and knowing where to go or who to contact to get it; and, knowing that if you want to engage in public affairs, you know how to go about it and that the “cost of involvement” is low, e.g., time and money (phone call, email, drive to a public meeting). 

I would also propose that this connectivity is not necessarily affected by population size.  Whether you live in Peewee Valley, Kentucky or Dallas, Texas, one still has a communal sense with their local government (city, county, township, parish, metro and so on). Step up a level in government and that sense of connectivity decreases. 

So what does this mean for the use of, or need for, collaborative technologies like Web 2.0 in governing?  Since connectivity and building networks is at the root of these solutions, then it means something pretty important, especially now.  As we face a number of local, state and national public policy challenges such as healthcare reform, the environment, wars and the economic collapse, we need to advocate strongly for better ways to bring together the public and the public sector to communicate and share information.

For governments to manage effectively and efficiently (through public input and feedback), for citizens to achieve a level of attachment to their government (through easier access to people and information), and for our democracy to succeed, there needs to be a stronger sense of connectivity of citizens to all levels of their government.

NOTE:  In my 3 August post, I outlined 11 questions consistently raised by individuals and groups of government agencies and non-profit organizations relating to adopting Web 2.0 strategies and practices into their internal and external relationships.  I want to briefly address them in my Blog throughout August. 

Q #1: What business model should I use?  As our primary online interaction with our audience, do we use our own organization’s site, an independent third party facilitator, or rely on an existing social community?  

During the week of April 27^th – May 3^rd, 22,000 visitors from 50 states and 98 foreign countries, from Fortune 500 companies and small businesses, web designers and financial services experts, internet novices and the Web 2.0 innovators all went online to participate in the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board’s National Dialogue.

The dialogue, designed and executed by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), was meant to solicit ideas and suggestions on how to build recovery.gov into the preeminent site where the public can monitor and track the spending of recovery funds.  The RAT Board enlisted their help to engage this group and convene an online dialog.

Washington DC-based NAPA is a very forward thinking organization.  NAPA provides a variety of strategic services to government and to the public including working with federal agencies that want to engage in an online dialog with citizens. 

NAPA is able to move quickly, use select online engagement tools that will work for that particular initiative, ask questions of citizens or collect socio-demographic information that may not be permitted by the federal agency.  And NAPA can provide results and reports quickly to help policy makers make informed decisions. 

In Florida, the Collins Center for Public Policy is recognized as a credible, non-partisan public policy think tank.  The non-profit organization has facilitated public discussion and engagement on behalf of government agencies on a variety of policy issues affecting the state and its citizens.

NAPA and Collins Center represent one of three business models for government and non-profit agencies that seek to use Web 2.0 solutions to connect their employees, members and the public.  This model calls for locating a third party organization that is knowledgeable and experienced in collaborative technologies, and can bring groups together and facilitate their interaction on behalf of an organization or agency.

Another model includes developing in-house social media applications on the organization’s web site.  The third model focuses on using an existing, external social network where your audience is already active and then connecting to them in that network. 

Each of these models help public organizations establish or evolve their online presence and expand their reach and impact to those in which they need to communicate and share information.  However, these models offer very different and unique experiences for the organization and the user.  The key questions are which one works best, and can or should an organization utilize more than one model?

Your Site/Your Community

The benefit of going it your own is more about controlling the environment than it is cost savings, however, using internal resources will translate into real or in-kind investments. 

Options include the organization purchasing packaged or customized social media solutions, or seek out free applications as many components that encourage interaction, e.g., wikis, forums, and blogs can be downloaded at little or no cost. 

 As for proprietary solutions, the costs can vary greatly.  Open source solutions are free to download, but they generally require someone with a working or technical knowledge of that application or coding.  Selecting the solution that works best with the “personality” and talents of the organization is also important.  In some cases, an agency or organization may be locked into using a system based on an enterprise agreement they were not a part of deciding but are obligated to follow, so check with purchasing or your IT department if part of a larger organization.

 The other cost is around human resources.  In many cases, organizations may not have the in-house talent to build, provide staff or facilitate their online presence.  The bottom line is no organization wants to lay out scarce resources for a solution that may not be used by its internal people or by the external audience.  After all, deciding why to use and how you and your audiences will benefit from social media should be addressed before taking any action. 

In the case of some federal agencies that rely on NAPA, there may be limitations or even restrictions on the type of engagement that an agency can officially conduct online –whether through policy or through their current technology capabilities.  Legal issues around transparency and open records requirements will require both time and knowledge to administer.  And the consequences or failure to do so are risks that may outweigh the benefits or investment to that organization and may require internal policy changes.

Joining “In-Network”  

The third option is using an existing social network or community to engage the public.  Some of the more prominent ones include Face Book, MySpace, and YouTube.  Here, an agency or organization can create an account and publish information and interact with the public.  Citizens and members can view, read, watch or download that content.  If they want to interact with the agency or organization they may have to sign up or establish an account with that network so they can provide input and feedback to that organization.

The challenge posed in this option relates mostly to transparency, open records requirements of the organization or governing body, and sometimes having a thick skin.  Organizations also have to abide by the policies of that social network, which can pose additional challenges, especially for a government agency. 

For example, if the social network requires little if any attribution or contact information from a member, then they can remain anonymous.  There may not be options for moderating comments.  Managing off-topic or off-color remarks may be difficult without someone constantly viewing members’ posted comments or content.  I remember viewing the Michigan State Senate YouTube page and reading some pretty vicious comments posted to some of their videos, although it appears they are now moderating comments instead of allowing automatic publishing. 

Accepting advertisements as a visible part of your community may also have to be a consideration in an external social network.  ”Free” communities still have to pay bills.  I recall visiting Senator John Edwards’ 2004 campaign page on MySpace and noting the Victoria Secret banner ad with an underwear-clad young woman.  Nothing distasteful (to me, anyway), but distracting nonetheless.  (I wish I still had that screenshot to post).  In some communities, you can pay a fee to have your particular pages free of advertising.

One positive feature using an existing social network is not being concerned about public traffic on your organization’s servers, or behind your firewall.  Anyone wishing to disrupt your online presence or launch a virus attack will be doing so on this community’s servers, not yours -something your IT departments tends to favor. 

Existing social networks can be a quick way for an agency or organization to establish a presence at little or no cost and provide a way to gauge the public’s interest in your mission and objectives.  It is a viable option to test the waters before building a full blown social network.

Which model works best for your organization? Many questions should be considered, below are some suggestions to help make a decision.

• Is there a strategy?  Not only on how-to, but why.  Get this done first!
• What financial and human resources are available?  Do you have a budget and/or the in-house capability to build or manage?
• What is the organization’s “personality” in terms of interest, knowledge, experience using social media?
• Preferably, will the group participate in the community or will it be managed by one person? 

Should you consider using a combination of the models?  Absolutely.  Internal and external engagements sometimes require different tools and tactics.  It may be easier and result in more immediate feedback to use an existing network to reach an audience.  Other times, it may be important to report on the outcomes of an engagement and there is a need for analytic tools and/or data requirements from individuals that may not be available in one of your models. 

Please share your knowledge and experiences as they relate to this subject matter.  Be sure to search Google for additional links as there are many examples and insights from practitioners, novices and strategists who can add more to this discussion.  What are some of your ideas?

Next topic:

What are the legal challenges we face in terms of transparency and open records management?