“The expectations are so high for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke Thursday to say something revealing about more Fed easing that he can probably only disappoint markets.” - CNBC, 6/6/12

A week ago, we wrote about Congress and its wrestling match with the issue of bulk legislative data. Many open government activists were unhappy at the time as the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations released a report that essentially passed the responsibility for improving public access to legislative data to a non-public task force with no set reporting date.

However, there is an update, and it is positive.

A statement from House leaders on Wednesday went like this:

“The coming vote on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill marks an important milestone for the House of Representatives:  the moment lawmakers agree to free legislative information from the technical limits of years past and embrace a more open, more transparent, and more effective way of doing the people’s business. Our goal is to provide bulk access to legislative information to the American people without further delay.

“The bill directs a task force to expedite the process of making public information available to the public.  In addition to legislative branch agencies such as the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office, the task force will include representatives of House leadership and key committees, as well as the Clerk of the House and the House Chief Administrative Officer.

“This is a big project.  That’s why accomplishing it rapidly and responsibly requires all those with a role in the collection and dissemination of legislative information to be at the table together.  Because this effort ranks among our top priorities in the 112th Congress, we will not wait for enactment of a Legislative Branch appropriations bill but will instead direct the task force to begin its important work immediately.

Positive, indeed.

The Sunlight Foundation and Daniel Schuman follow up on this development:

The debate over whether there should be bulk access to legislative data is over. Because bulk access is a top priority of the 112th Congress, we expect to see tangible progress in the upcoming months. The remaining questions largely concern how bulk access should be implemented to meet the needs of the public while respecting the legitimate concerns of Congress and its support agencies.

While we are disappointed that the task force will not include members of the public, we hope that the public will be consulted. After all, the American people are the intended end-users. Sunlight and our friends in the transparency community stand ready to be of assistance as the technical, policy, and scope issues are addressed.

While this is clearly progress, there’s still much more to do. We will be monitoring this issue closely.

Perhaps the most important line from this excerpt is the last one, which touches on remaining steadfast. Verbal progress is good, but consistent, tangible steps forward will prove that Congress is true in its initiative about creating transparency.

Kudos to everyone who works tirelessly in this space and pushes for advancement. Let’s see where it goes from here.

— Spencer

“Stocks tumbled on Wednesday as surging bond yields in Spain and Italy ratcheted up tensions in financial markets about Europe’s ability to solve its growing debt crisis.” - Reuters, 5/30/12

Congress takes quite a bit of public flack, especially considering their record low approval ratings and all.

Perhaps it is not always deserved (debatable by many), but there are events when one can’t help but heap blame on our representatives in D.C.

One such case will likely rear its head on Thursday, May 31 when the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations is scheduled for a full vote on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for 2013, outlining spending on legislation.

Many have hoped the bill would address the longstanding issue of improving public access to legislative information in forms that are easily consumed and accurately distributed in the digital space. Well, in a draft report, the committee does address the problem, but not in the most forward thinking way.

A number of respected open government advocates have chimed in on this, so we will let them explain further.

Daniel Schuman and Eric Mill of the Sunlight Foundation write (definitely recommend reading this link in its entirety):

Appropriators misunderstand how data can be “authenticated,” and kick responsibility for improving public access to legislative data to a non-public task force with no set reporting date. Unless corrected, this draft report represents a tremendous step backward for transparency, and fails to seriously grapple with the history of efforts to free legislative information for widespread public use.

Meanwhile, Waldo Jaquith, who created ethics.gov, gives his thoughts:

This is bullshit. Either that or congress is relying on advisors who are simultaneously very smart and very stupid. What congress fears here is actually none of these things, but instead they are afraid of the fact that it is 2012. By not providing bulk downloads of legislation, they’re requiring that Josh Tabuerer keep scraping its text off their website to post at GovTrack.us, from which all of other other open congress websites get their text. If Josh wants to verify that the version of a bill that he has is accurate, he’s out of luck. There’s no master copy. For all technical purposes, congress is silent on what their bills say. (I have this same problem with Virginia legislation on Richmond Sunlight.) For Appropriations to argue that releasing legislation as XML presents potential problems with the accuracy of the circulated text is to pretend that a) there’s already a healthy ecosystem of unauthorized bulk congressional legislative data and b) that their failure to participate in that ecosystem is the source of any accuracy problems, and that by providing data themselves, then it becomes technologically trivial to verify the accuracy of a copy of a bill.

This is a real embarrassment, both to congress and to the United States. I’ve got a bit of experience in the federal data realm, and I can tell you that in the realm of open data, compared to the White House, Congress is trapped in the stone age. Now we see that they intend to stay there.

As Jaquith points out, people are already editing legislative data and many of these people want bulk data from Congress to ensure absolute accuracy, rather than tampering.

It’s not about control, it’s about transparency and providing correct data for citizens.

Finally, David Moore of OpenCongress lets us know who we should contact with our concerns:

Primary point of contact here should be office of Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-04] – 202-225-2501 - on behalf of the intentionally, insistently closed-off Legislative Branch Subcommittee of House Cmte. on Appropriations. Give them a ring and let them know that even if you’re not a constituent, you demand bulk access to public legislative information – literally the data that shapes the laws of the land & our shared, lived public policies – and that they’re unforgivably standing in the way of progress on basic government transparency. If anyone from Rep. Crenshaw’s staff or office is reading this, give me a ping on Skype at davidmooreppf to chat voice or video chat, and I’ll politely reiterate the extensive testimony submitted by OC & GovTrack & Sunlight & others on behalf of the millions of people who want access to public data in real-time. Rep. Crenshaw profile on OC; office phone: 202-225-2501.

This is obviously an ongoing issue, but one that is of vital importance to creating a more transparent and accountable government.

Congress appears poised to turn its nose up to this cause. In which case, citizens should be poised to take collective action.

— Spencer

“The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s chairman said on Tuesday that regulators plan to review allegations that Morgan Stanley shared negative news before Facebook’s initial public offering with institutional investors.” - CNBC, 5/22/12

We’ve posted a good bit about open government and the movement behind it over the last few months.

But, the meaning of open government can get buried in the push forward, particularly when you begin talking about open data and other initiatives that can muddy exactly what open government is supposed to do. A clear direction and purpose is vital for open government to provide substantial and tangible returns, rather than become rhetoric.

Nathaniel Heller — a co-founder of Global Integrity — tackled this topic very well on his blog:

At its core, “open government” to me means three things:

1. Information Transparency: that the public understands the workings of their government;
2. Public engagement: that the public can influence the workings of their government by engaging in governmental policy processes and service delivery programs; and
3. Accountability: that the public can hold the government to account for its policy and service delivery performance.

Into those three buckets we can then deposit many of the “open government” initiatives, programs, and interventions that are often invoked on their own as “open government.” What’s most important here, to me, is that none of these initiatives or interventions in and of themselves constitute “open government” alone. Rather, only when combined with the others do we truly see the potential for “open government” in its most powerful and holistic form.

Bucket 1 (Information Transparency): freedom of information initiatives; open data and Big [Public] Data efforts, including open data portals; procurement, budget, and policy transparency (e.g. voting records, meeting minutes, political finance transparency).

Bucket 2 (Public Engagement): e-government services; open311 and service delivery feedback loops; stakeholder fora and participatory processes (e.g. participatory budgeting, town hall meetings, both online and offline); electoral processes.

Bucket 3 (Accountability): anti-corruption mechanisms (e.g. auditing, ombudsmen); conflicts of interest and influence peddling safeguards.

It goes without saying that the world does not fit neatly into this clean paradigm. Electoral processes are as much a form of accountability as a form of engagement, and the distinction between information transparency and engagement blurs quickly when we talk about something like open311. But hopefully the general construct holds some water.

As for technology? I view technology agnostically in the context of “open government.” Some of the above interventions don’t work without technology — think open data, open311, or e-government services. Others work quite well without websites or apps. Technology can certainly be a powerful force multiplier in the context of open government, and it can take interventions to scale rapidly. But technology is neither open government itself nor required for open government to necessarily take hold, in my view.

We tend to agree with Nathaniel’s outline. As he intelligently points out, the world rarely fits perfectly within a clean set of parameters and technology is not always vital; however, reminding ourselves of the constructs of open government will only help in moving it forward with meaning and results.

- Spencer

“Opponents of a U.S. law they claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism persuaded a federal judge to temporarily block the measure.” - Bloomberg, 5/17/12

We’ve posted this image on the blog before, but it never hurts to reinforce the larger point. The power of citizens is what skimmerhat, and many of the initiatives within the Gov 2.0 and open government movement, is predicated upon; it’s the backbone.

Americans and their government can work together for a better country, but collectively as individuals, we man the controls for the direction America will move. That should never be lost on us as citizens. We all can strongly and thoughtfully wield this power.

- Spencer

“U.S. prosecutors and defense attorneys for five defendants in the September 11 attacks dug in on Sunday for a long legal battle that one lawyer said may never be resolved.” - Reuters, 5/6/12

In our last post regarding Transparency Camp 2012 — a gathering of open data/open government activists hosted by the Sunlight Foundation — we touched on the concept that each of us has a role to play in the push for a better, more accountable government.

The initiative is a complex one. Just like the popular aphorism that “beauty is in the eye of a beholder,” to what extent “better government” looks like is visualized in many different ways by many different people. No single parameter defines what a better government means to every American.

The process itself is not easy, either. There are layers upon layers to our government, and all need improvement in not only how government serves citizens, but how it is held accountable as well. But, the multiple layers, divisions, sections, agencies, bureaucracies, and outside entities (such as government contractors) make government — from federal level down to local municipalities — too large, and too expansive, to be tackled in a single front.

And, that’s where we all have a role to play.

A Functioning Government

A better government won’t come from one place. It will originate from multiple initiatives through the cooperation of groups across the civic space. In the Gov 2.0 and open government movement, this is happening.

However, there appears to be one aspect absent. This missing element can be encapsulated in a tweet by Code for America Executive Director Jennifer Pahlka:

@pahlkadot:…technologists are more interested in getting the government to function than they are in getting their guy elected http://bit.ly/JQ5Iuf

The article Pahlka references in her Tweet is here. It largely discusses how open data and open government technologists are pushing Gov 2.0 forward. And, skimmerhat couldn’t be happier about this. But, the troubling part of Pahlka’s quote is that she seems to minimize the value of government policy and representation. This theme — we can help the government function through our ingenuity, sans politics – is inherent in Code for America’s overall branding.

Even more troubling is the trend to distance oneself from politics or political motivation, which seems to be pervasive throughout the Gov 2.0, open data and open government movements in the civic space.

It’s not that this separation isn’t understandable. Politics is complicated, divisive and in many cases, downright hideous. Politics has become such a “dirty word” that it is often avoided in conversation with family and friends.

But, we can’t afford to ignore politics, no matter how messy it may be. If we do, things will only worsen.

A recent Politico article titled “Congress: It’s going to get worse” sums up the state of our nation:

As it stands, Congress is more polarized than at any time since Reconstruction, according to data compiled by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, political scientists who study congressional voting.

And getting more polarized, they correctly argue.

When presented with such a bleak picture, it makes sense that many technologists, hackers, and developers are reluctant to take a political stand when they can be effective in other areas that lack the divisiveness. They may also believe that they must first make an impact in other areas of government before tackling the political process or that too much emphasis is traditionally put on politics.

Unfortunately, this approach is much like trying to fix the engine on a car with a flat tire. It may run better, but you’re still not going to go real far.

Using the “Force”

Having an app for uncovering fire hydrants, or a platform to take a picture and report a problem with traffic lights are great examples of making government more efficient through civic hacking. And, creating APIs for data that previously were buried deep into a filing cabinet is indispensable for making government more transparent.

These endeavors compare to policy work on issues on civil liberties, tax reform and regulation — which are policy areas necessary to the lives of Americans across the country. And, this policy work is just as needed as the work of new APIs (as was discussed in the Hacking Society conversation a couple weeks ago).

Here’s why: In another recent Politico article, a Pew survey showed that it’s been 15 years since Americans haven been as disgusted with the Federal government as they are today:

Today, just one in three has a favorable view of the federal government — the lowest level in 15 years, according to a Pew survey. The majority of Americans remain satisfied with their local and state governments — 61 percent and 52 percent, respectively — but only 33 percent feel likewise about the federal government.

Voices aren’t being heard. People aren’t being represented.

It’s the car with a new engine, but a flat tire. Government may begin to run more efficiently — which benefits all citizens. But, if government isn’t listening to those citizens, we’re still not moving in a positive direction as a country.

Now, imagine applying the strength of Gov 2.0 — which already promotes engagement, transparency and accountability — to make better sense of the “p” word, and make sense of candidates involved in politics. And, not just on the “backend,” after candidates are in office, but on the frontend, too — when candidates are competing for votes in the electoral process.

Skimmerhat envisions this ideal in a system that allows Americans to find the candidates they want to believe in before they are given the limited slate of options on a general election ballot. And, to sidestep the current polarization of politics, we want to build a non-partisan way of finding these candidates.

Our idea uses the momentum of Gov 2.0 as a way for individuals and small donors to unite behind ideas, allowing individual citizens to directly influence the direction of the country — even in the age of PACs and Super PACs.

Imagine lowering the barrier to entry for citizens and candidates alike.

Then imagine this working in tandem with all of the other aspects of Gov 2.0, where data is more accessible and transparent, and where government is more accountable.

Would our government improve?

We think so, made possible through the power of citizen engagement — a core tenet of organizations like Code for America.

A Goal to Pursue Consistently

It won’t be easy. It will be infinitely more difficult than writing about it in a blog entry. After all, there is no utopia where Americans will be in 100 percent approval of the federal government.

However, just because it’s a challenge doesn’t mean we should avoid it, or ignore the problem altogether.

In a post by David Eaves — where he addresses Tom Slee’s post about the open data movement being a joke — he writes:

Open data is not the solution for Open Government (I don’t believe there is a single solution, or that Open Government is an achievable state of being - just a goal to pursue consistently), and I don’t believe anyone has made the case that it is. I know I haven’t. But I do believe open data can help. Like many others, I believe access to government information can lead to better informed public policy debates and hopefully some improved services for citizens (such as access to transit information). I’m not deluded into thinking that open data is going to provide a steady stream of obvious “gotcha moments” where government malfeasance is discovered, but I am hopeful that government data can arm citizens with information that the government is using to inform its decisions so that they can better challenge, and ultimately help hold accountable, said government.

As we mentioned at the outset of this post: there is no one approach to solving this problem. The solution combines multiple approaches that, when working together, can create a real plan for change.

Advocates of open data, open government and Gov 2.0 are creating the tools to arm Americans with more power, and creating them under the umbrella of a better, more accountable government. We’re building a process of finding and funding our representatives motivated by the same goal.

We’re all under the same umbrella.

“President Barack Obama, speaking early Wednesday in Afghanistan at the tail end of a surprise visit there, discussed how the war will end and promised a steady drawdown of U.S. troops.” - CNN, 5/2/12

The title of the post (which was also a tweet) pretty much sums up our experience at TransparencyCamp over the weekend. It was hard not to be energized by a group of people who want to create a better and more open government.

But they aren’t just saying it, they are doing it, which is inspiring.

The weekend gave us a chance to see in person how people from a wide array of backgrounds are pushing the open government and Gov 2.0 movement forward.

We sat in on sessions with those with development expertise like Dan Schneiderman, Jeff Schuler, Waldo Jaquith, Juan-Pablo Velez and Dan Melton; all of whom have worked and are working on amazing projects to give citizens a better glimpse into our government. And they love data.

We sat in on sessions with those who research tirelessly like Evan Mackinder, Kevin McNellis, Tyler Evilsizer, Mike Krejci and Jay Costa. They work to provide the most accurate view into money in politics. It’s an incredibly difficult and tedious job, but a service that is absolutely necessary.

We sat in on sessions with those who help make sense of the whole scene like Alex Howard, Nikki Usher and Matthew Hall. The relationship among all of the moving parts in open government is pivotal in order for it to move forward with continuity and strength.

We sat and listened to Todd Park, the United States Chief Technology Officer, explain the future of open government in a fashion that was contagious with giddiness. To have a leader inside the government like Park only lends more credence to where we are heading as a country in regards to transparency; something everyone is giddy about.

While the individual names making an impact are important and endless (everyone at Tcamp has an awesome story), a better government is more about the collection of individuals than the individuals themselves. There are many roles to fill, and each is vital in reaching success. For us to realize the true potential of our government, we all must embrace this belief. It seems many of the people who took part in TransparencyCamp already get this, which is fantastic.

We hope to be a part of this movement, helping Americans make more informed decisions, engage in the process and have their voices more accurately represented in Washington. We are but one cog in a much larger machine moving our country forward, however. We couldn’t be happier about that.

P.S. The Sunlight Foundation deserves major props for handling such a large crowd with efficiency and care. It was professional all the way, and it is awesome how affordable they made the conference for everyone attending. Oh yeah, and the food trucks rocked!

— Spencer

“Today, just one in three has a favorable view of the federal government — the lowest level in 15 years, according to a Pew survey. The majority of Americans remain satisfied with their local and state governments — 61 percent and 52 percent, respectively — but only 33 percent feel likewise about the federal government.” - Politico, 4/26/12

The above image shows the route (ATL to DC) we are taking tomorrow when we head to Transparency Camp, a weekend-long event put on by the Sunlight Foundation.

We wrote about Transparency Camp recently here. It is where people from a range of backgrounds gather to share their knowledge about how to use new technologies and policies to make our government really work for the people — and to help our people work smarter with our government.

We have been looking forward to the weekend because we believe we can learn from the knowledge and experience that will be in the room. Even more, it will be exciting to be surrounded by people who want more for our government and Americans and are working to make it happen.

We will be sure to update the blog and our social media links to document our experience in the coming days and weeks. So, be on the lookout for that.

Here’s to safe travels and greater government openness and transparency.

- Spencer

“The District’s attorney general said Wednesday that he will sue former city employees who collected unemployment benefits while working. District officials have estimated that the city had paid as much as $800,000 in jobless benefits to working city employees since 2009.” - Washington Post, 4/18/12

Open government is being discussed more and more these days. And thankfully, it is also being discussed by the right people — those in government. Such is true this week with the Open Government Partnership conference, which is being held in Brazil.

Alex Howard of O’Reilly Media, among others, has done a great job covering the event and the topics of discussion:

A historic Open Government Partnership launched in New York City last September with 8 founding countries. Months later representatives from 73 countries and 55 governments have come together to present their open government action plans and formally endorse the principles in the Open Government Partnership. Yesterday, hundreds of attendees from government, civil society, media and the private sector watched in person and online as Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff spoke about her country’s efforts to root out corruption and engage the Brazilian people in governance and more active citizenship. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton preceded her, defining an open or closed society as a key dividing line of the 21st century.

Today’s agenda included more regional breakouts and an opening plenary session on the “Responsibility and Challenges that Come with Openness.”

Here is a link with a number of interviews with leaders from around the world discussing the importance of open government. It’s good stuff.

— Spencer