Transparency innovation means citizen involvement

We’ve written before about how governments are sponsoring contests involving citizens and small technology companies to better deliver government data.

The outcome of these contests has been positive. The contests have resulted the data released on data.gov becoming useful, data previously criticized as being low quality, into maps that display geographic clusters of asthma, for example. In Washington, D.C., the value of the software created by the first Apps for Democracy competition is estimated to be in excess of $2.2 million. That contest gave out $20,000 in cash prizes.

David McClure of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies for the Obama Adminsitration stated that the government must learn to accept the notion that innovation in governing will increasingly occur beyond the government sphere. In other words, he is urging governments to get used to the fact that they benefit from, and need to, collaborate with citizens in order to maximize the good we get from innovation. And, as noted, that is a good message. The benefits of giving citizens a key to open data are many.

However, that statement doesn’t go far enough. Citizens are important in helping government deliver information in usable, innovative ways, but they are also the most important part of the equation. Government isn’t doing us a favor by collaborating with us; it’s the government’s job to have an ongoing discussion with its citizens.

Innovation in transparency is a great means of ensuring this discussion happens. Ealier this week, the New York City Council held an open meeting, inviting experts and citizens to testify on how the city can make good use of data released by every city agency under a new bill.

Now, private companies are providing a means for beating government to the punch. Bing.com has just launched an app contest, and open data fans are taking that as a cue. The trend of citizens taking advantage of information the government allows us to have is only growing, and we look forward to the continued positive outcomes.

U.S. PIRG on transparency: more states should do more of it

Along the same lines of the policy brief on Florida’s transparency I blogged about yesterday, the U.S. PIRG has come out with an interesting study on states providing online access to government data, concluding that there are no downsides to government providing data online in a searchable format, there are only benefits.

In Following the Money: How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Government Spending Data, the authors aim to provide a benchmark for comparing states in their individual road to providing government data online. They start by highlighting several key points about transparency in general. Among these:
*The movement toward Transparency 2.0 is broad, bipartisan, and popular.
*Transparency 2.0 saves money and bolsters citizen confidence.
*Even in leading states, there are many opportunities to improve transparency Web sites.

What does the study propose? Simply put, more—more information, more usability. The study outlines three criteria for Transparency 2.0. First, the portal a government posts its data on should be comprehensive, including all spending data for all levels of government. Second, it should provide all of this information in one site, not make you jump around to partner sites. Lastly, the information and search functions must be user-friendly, allowing citizens to enter a single query or browse common-sense categories.

The study also highlights innovative governments that get creative. San Francisco, for example, recently launched DataSF, a searchable Web site that provides data on a variety of city issues and allows users to comment on and rank the datasets with the hope of improving government performance in the future. The Web site also provides mobile phone apps that integrate the data and provide residents with useful tools. We at Sunshine Review love that sort of

So why should governments embrace transparency, according to U.S. PIRG? Transparency websites can help reduce fraud and misspending. The promise of posting information online makes shady officials know they have citizens to answer to and reminds fiscally irresponsible officials to think twice about a line item. Transparency portals are “excellent tools of civic engagement.” They encourage citizens to work together with government and remove that distance between voter and candidate. The study’s authors note in another section that without accurate and up-to-date data, citizens lack the tools to interact with their elected officials. The lines of communication only flow one way. And for all these benefits and the others detailed in Following the Money, the cost of a web transparency portal isn’t much. Another benefit of transparency: it’s cheap.

Basically, every facet of transparency is a good, inexpensive, money-and-legitimacy saving consequence. It’s like music to our ears. If governments want to ensure a happy citizenry that is engaged, it should collaborate with us by following the spirit and ideas outlined in Following the Money.

Transparency can save more than money in West Virginia

It’s easy to see some of the benefits of government transparency. Of course, sunshine is the best disinfectant when it comes to corruption, as Louisiana Senator Robert Adley noted in a topic we covered yesterday, Governor Bobby Jindal’s mixed transparency record. It is also a great solution for budgetary problems: public scrutiny is a great way to filter out the state spending we need, from the state spending we need

Today in the Huffington Post, however, the implications of a lack of transparency can be deadlier. The article details how the mine inspector’s notes, released in an attempt to give answers to a citezenry still rocked by the recent explosion that killed 29 miners at a Massey Energy mine in West Virginia.

The Post goes on to critique the government for not releasing those notes until after people died. Had they been, journalists would have picked up on the history of shoddy standards and fines the mine had to pay as fines for breaking rules.

It is never too late to start opening up government. Sunshine Review’s evaluation of West Virginia county website shows that West Virginia deserves increased attention in matters of transparency. An overwhelming amount of items we check for in our transparency checklist are marked with a red “x”, indicating that the government has failed to disclose a key piece of information.

Of course, this seems like a meaningless step when compared with the type of information that was left private in the West Virginia case. But having more open websites would show West Virginia citizens that their governments are ready to collaborate.

Illinois Counties responding to SR information requests

I’m currently in the middle of requesting lobbying information from all Illinois counties, including membership and dues information for taxpayer-funded lobbying associations. I wrote yesterday about the fogginess involved in taxpayer-funded lobbying, and I’m hoping that this next step of getting counties’ information will help clear up that fog—add some sunshine, if you will.

As I told some of the county officials I spoke with, this isn’t a “gotcha!” operation. Sunshine Review believes in affirmative disclosure and we recognize that transparency is the best way to keep government accountable to its citizens. We see it more as a preventative step rather than a sting operation.

(Incidentally, one thing I didn’t mention in my blog post yesterday about the Pacific Research Institute’s new study on taxpayer-funded lobbying is that transparency prevents corruption, and transparency is the mark of a non-corrupt government. Regardless of what comes first, it’s good transparency comes with good things.)

As a result of the new FOIA law in Illinois currently being contested, I’ve actually received most counties’ replies and am working on sorting through them. One county has actually found it “too burdensome.” I’ll hold off posting the guilty party’s name until I follow up with them and see if we can’t work something out, but generally speaking, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at how responsive and helpful Illinois county officials have been in getting me information. This is truly in the spirit of collaboration.

Transparency, a scholarly pursuit

An interesting post in the site NextGov (“technology and the business of government”) posits that “the practice of disclosing government data in a way that is meaningful to the public and holds the government accountable could become a growing area of scholarly interest.” In other words, transparency is gaining interest.

In particular, scholarly interest. The article notes that Obama’s transparency promises played a large role in making open government a priority by giving the idea a high profile, even if his policies in effect have been worthy of some criticism. This increased attention on transparency makes it easier to obtain funding for projects related to releasing government data in a usable format.

The article also notes that the body of work on the subject of using data to drive transparency is limited. I recently wrote about how some people are incentivizing the development of programs that would do just that.

The experts interviewed implied three things:

1) Transparency is complete. It means all of the related documents, all information.
2) Transparency comes with the responsibility of interpreting the data.
2a) There is a need for scholars’ perspectives:

“You might need legal experts to be able to explain how information fits into the statutory or regulatory framework; you would need cognitive specialists to talk about attentional issues, human-computer interaction specialists . . . and social scientists of some sort to do follow up.”

3) The collaboration between governments and citizens has to be real. (In fact, one scholar’s concern about Obama’s policies was the lack of genuine participation from citizens.)

The article continues to talk about the need and pursuit of funds for funding the academic study of government transparency. We, of course, are happy whenever any attention is paid to government transparency, from whatever angle. It tends to produce good outcomes. The scholarly angle in transparency can do nothing but add and improve to our current knowledge.

Oregon Attorney General has the right idea

Oregon Attorney General John Kroger is really taking transparency to heart. He’s taking part in a series of talks around the state that invite citizens and the media to suggest improvements to the state’s sunshine law.

The Attorney General is “very eager to hear people’s experiences and take input.” A great idea, since the one thing people want when they are upset or frustrated is a sympathetic ear. The people in attendance for this first talk were happy to have an outlet for their concerns, while a handful tried to point fingers about alleged corruption in the court system.

Still, the general feeling of the citizens in attendance was one of collaboration with the government. One citizen said “It’s not a matter of pointing fingers, it’s ‘let’s be as transparent as possible.’”

The talk went on in the same vein of constructive progress. Attendees made suggestions about how to improve Oregon’s law, including putting public records online, cutting fees and limiting what sometimes can be lengthy responses to public-record requests.

The attorney general’s office has taken several steps to promote government transparency. Kroger’s office has put public records and meetings manuals online, created a citizens guide to public records and meetings for laypersons, and has posted records requests online, among other things. A last step to improve Oregon’s law, according to Kroger, is to take suggestions from the public meetings to the Legislature.

This is exactly the type of personal initiative we believe in at Sunshine Review. Attorney General Kroger takes it one step further by actually asking to hear from people who have experience requesting information. And we think it pays off; the option is either becoming a transparent government voluntarily, or waiting too long until your legitimacy takes a hit and you’re forced to release information.

David Cameron in Britain on transparency

David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party in Britain and the Leader of the Opposition Party in the House of Commons, has been talking about transparency recently. In a speech at the University of East London, Cameron expressed a very negative view of lobbying. The Conservative leader said that the “£2 billion industry” is too significant Westminster and in some cases MPs are approached more than 100 times a week by lobbyists.” Cameron uses an inclusive definition of “lobbying,” similar to the definition found on Sunshine Review:

“We all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisers for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way.”

His prescription? To shine “the light of transparency” on lobbying so that the government “comes clean about who is buying power and influence.” David Miller of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency welcomed Cameron’s admission that something needs to be done. He suggested the Leader introduce a mandatory register of lobbyists. This sounds like some of the lobbyist registration guidelines we have.

“Instead of locking people out of this process,” Cameron said, “we need to invite them in.” Along with lobbyist registration, Cameron hopes to institute a Public Reading Stage for bills so that the public is aware of current legislation. This is similar to propositions by American politicians, such as President Barack Obama’s transparency plans.

These all sound like great ideas for moving Britain to a more transparent way of doing things. Even if Cameron does not necessarily need to commit to his ideas, there’s a good chance the spotlight he has brought to transparency will be a good influence by itself.