Category: Democracy

Categories
Democracy Gov2.0 Governing Government Communication Journalism Local Government News Media public communications management Public Engagement Public Information Transparency

Educating the Public: A Brave New World

This is a reprint of a guest column I was invited to submit to Barrett & Greene Inc. published on 11/29/2023 (Adapted for the TDK blog, readers have the option between the “appetizer” version and the “main course” version.)

As an appetizer…

In a democracy, the news media’s vital role in disseminating government information faces challenges with the rise of social media. As technology transforms communication, government officials argue its advantages for efficiency, while journalists warn of unchecked government influence. Public trust in both government and news media compounds the issue. Acknowledging low trust levels, governments aim to engage residents through social media, with 55% of American adults using it for news. Caution is urged, advocating for greater coordination between public organizations and the media to ensure historic checks and balances endure. Recommendations for government managers include treating news media as constituent VIPs, using dedicated technology platforms for communication and information exchanges, and building media partnerships for informed public discourse to navigate challenges and uphold democratic principles.

As the main course…

Disseminating information about government and public affairs is a basic responsibility of the news media in a democratic society. The Founders believed it was important for a formal institution, independent of government, to have the responsibility to oversee, vet, and inform the public about government affairs and guarantee it constitutional protection.

However, with rapid advancements in digital communication, the landscape is changing. Social media supplements and at times circumvents the role of the traditional press as a means for state and local governments to get their messages across to a broad audience. This trend introduces new challenges and opportunities to inform, educate, and engage residents that impact government deliberations and policymaking. 

Many public officials argue that using these enabling technologies improves efficiency in delivering information to larger, more diverse populations they serve. The journalism community warns that when the government circumvents the news media, residents become vulnerable to government influence with unvetted information that may lack accuracy or contain slanted content. There are elements of truth to both perspectives.

Compounding the complexity of the issue are the historically low levels of public trust in both the government and the news media. In the context of a functioning democracy, acknowledging this reality becomes crucial in understanding the dynamics between the message and the messenger, and the public’s response. 

For the most part, the goal of governments is to inform and educate the residents they serve, and it’s not a surprise that they are increasingly inclined to meet the public on common ground. “The percentage of American adults who use social media for news, sometimes or often, is now at 55%,” according to Amy Mitchell, the Pew Research Center’s director of journalism. That’s up from the presidential election of 2016 when 42% of adults received at least some news from social media.

Enabling technologies present opportunities to expand the dissemination of public information, but caution must be taken. Government managers can play a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of public information and education. Here are three recommendations that advocate for cultural shifts within public organizations –which are never easy:

1. Treat the news media as a VIP member of your constituency.  Proactively utilize technology to work with the traditional news media in disseminating information to the public about your agency’s programs and policies.

Consider your department as one of many digital entry and dissemination points to the media and the public. Go from an information gatekeeper to an information gateway using technology to stream relevant content to a wider audience.

Work with your communication manager to build relationships with journalists through regular media briefings and position yourself as a point of contact for media inquiries that address your span of control within the administration.

2. Use a dedicated technology platform beyond social networks. A scalable, enterprise technology public engagement platform is essential to sharing information on a large scale. Each agency should have its designated portal providing easy access to information for the public and the media. 

Public engagement platforms benefit your agency and the news media in two ways. First, it is a proactive repository for information about your programs and policies the public and the media can easily access. Second, it serves as a collection point for public input and feedback. The information and exchanges amplify your message to a larger audience and can identify topics of interest the news media may want to follow up on. Your communications director and IT department are key internal partners.

3. Build news media partnerships for informed public discourse. Governments use public forums to inform residents about public policies and projects. The media’s role has been that of an observer. 

Partner with the news media to cosponsor public forums, both conventional and online, and share responsibility for managing public information and feedback. Each institution serves a different role and purpose as a public information provider. However, working together provides inclusive background and analyses which help build public support and trust and minimize misinformation. 

Be creative with the partnership in navigating community awareness around other critical public issues, such as misinformation education and digital media literacy campaigns.

The digital age has ushered in new challenges and opportunities for the primary institutional providers of public affairs information –the press and the public sector. While technological changes empower governments to play an increased role in information dissemination, trust must be preserved – a goal that is becoming ever more difficult.  

To restore public trust, both the government and the news media must build meaningful relationships with the residents they serve and with each other. Improving their roles as public information providers becomes the first and most crucial step in navigating the complexities of governing in the digital age while upholding the principles of democracy.

Categories
Democracy

Decentralizing Public Engagement – Building Trust and Participation through Flattened Hierarchies

As an appetizer…

In today’s digital democracy, government unlocking the full potential of public engagement in deliberative practices requires a three-pronged approach: expanding participation scope, flattening hierarchies, and embracing scalable technology platforms. This decentralization strategy offers numerous benefits, from flattening hierarchical engagement processes including online to distributing and leveraging residents’ knowledge and participation for better decision-making. Eight propositions guide this transformative process, emphasizing the role of trust-building, strategic technology use, and the need for dedicated public engagement platforms, especially over conventional social networks. By meeting resident expectations and preferences, governments can secure public support, fostering two-way communication and closing the feedback loop. Decentralizing public engagement isn’t just a technological shift; it’s a cultural transformation toward more inclusive, transparent, and informed governance.

As the main course…

E-Government and Gov 2.0 refer to the government’s increased use of communication and information technologies to communicate about and deliver programs and services to constituents. In public engagement processes, the landscape is evolving rapidly in today’s digital age.

While transactional engagement between government and residents has embraced technology, there remains a gap in deploying effective tools for participatory or deliberative processes. This lag was painfully evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for greater adoption and more innovative solutions beyond traditional engagement practices.

The challenges faced in modernizing public engagement in deliberative processes relate to institutional culture and the technology landscape. Public officials must commit to expanding engagement opportunities, while GovTech companies should explore their platforms’ potential as advocates and facilitators for broader public participation. Addressing these challenges could unlock the full potential of technology and deliver substantial benefits to the government, the public, and democracy.

Decentralization or flattening of hierarchical structures for deliberative public engagement addresses these challenges and helps achieve the benefits. Decentralizing public engagement involves three critical components:

  1. Expanding Participation Scope: Move beyond customary means to increase and distribute a community of users, or residents, engaged in decision-making processes.
  2. Flattening Hierarchies: Collapse established hierarchical processes and establish new forums that increase resident motivation and foster participation and feedback.
  3. Scalable Technology Platforms: Adopt and deploy across the entire organization to integrate traditional and digital public engagement processes for government deliberations.

Decentralization provides many benefits for both residents and public officials including:

  • Opening more doors and dialog between the public and government on specific issues.
  • Expanding accommodations beyond conventional engagement practices.
  • Leveraging residents’ energy, enthusiasm, and expertise about their community with the public work of government.
  • Organizing, facilitating, and reporting government deliberations that improve inclusive and informed decision-making.

At the “Rethinking Public Engagement Summit” sponsored by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), I presented eight propositions to support the concept of decentralizing public engagement:

Proposition #1: Building Trust: Public engagement serves as a direct pipeline for building trust in public institutions, with transparency and resident participation contributing significantly to establishing a positive reputation or brand.

Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal, the former director of digital engagement at The National Archives writes about how governments build strong brands. She states “The distinction between government branding and branding in the private sector is that government branding always comes down to trust, …you have to put money in the ‘trust bank’ first, establishing a positive and distinct reputation for trustworthiness and a particular set of values.”

Proposition #2: Technology and Cultural Transformations: Recognize the risks and benefits of increased participation in deliberative practices and develop strategies that minimize risks while maximizing the benefits of technology and cultural transformations.

In the digital age, local governments have gone from operating in a fishbowl to operating in an aquarium. More traffic, more eyes, more interest, and more opinions.

Eleven years ago the PEW Research Center and the Knight Foundation found only 3% of residents received information about their government from the government. The local news was the overwhelming source. Today, more local governments connect directly to their residents with their own information technology and social networks; even foregoing working through their local news media. This creates a new level of public information challenges that are covered elsewhere.

Proposition #3: Essential Technology Platforms: A scalable, enterprise technology platform is crucial to increase capacity, inclusion, and complement conventional practices.

Technology platforms enable ongoing and daily collaborations with residents and stakeholders beyond traditional forms of outreach. New digital avenues for G-C/C-G communication have been created including the ability to stream public meetings, send email, operate 311 call lines and apps, and enable social media.

However, governments have become overly reliant on using social media channels. It’s not uncommon to find scores of social media accounts on a local government website. Unfortunately, social media can be counterproductive to deliberative public engagement (see Proposition #7)

Proposition #4: The Wisdom of Crowds: The idea that large groups are collectively smarter than individual experts should be recognized, pursued, and facilitated using technology for better decision-making.

Managing large numbers of participants may be seen as unwieldy by those tasked with managing those processes. However, excluding people –directly or indirectly– who will be impacted by government decisions can create problems beyond poor decisions. It can create suspicion and mistrust among residents, and possibly lead to lawsuits.

Here is where public engagement platforms pay dividends. Not only can they organize and facilitate large numbers of participants, but through decentralized public engagement, they can be expanded to multiple areas to accommodate dispersed engagement in more areas of government deliberations.

Proposition #5: Quality vs. Quantity Challenge: Resolve the challenge through greater participant attribution and validation.

The power of public comment. In government deliberations, the need for structured and validated public input is critical. Identifying the origin (who and where) of constituent comments provides decision-makers with important information that can be crucial when making decisions on their behalf.

The public engagement technology platform used by deliberative bodies should offer multiple options or levels for attribution and validation surrounding resident participation. Depending on the need or requirement, the options should range from allowing anonymity (think public rally or assembly) to requiring full acknowledgment and certification (think public comment at a council meeting).

Proposition #6: Rethink Conventional Engagement: Transform traditional boards, commissions, and task forces into issue-focused online communities with their own “mini-publics.”

These traditional advisory panels are convened with small groups of residents. Typical local governments may have between 15-25 of these forums focused on a single program or policy. They are ripe for transformation in today’s digital government.

Using public engagement platforms, local governments can transform these outdated boards into issue-focused online communities. Members of the new structured forums include motivated residents, or “mini-publics” who have a keen interest in specific issues –safety, health, education, transportation, and land use planning– and will enthusiastically contribute their knowledge and ideas to improve policy-making.

Proposition #7: Avoiding Social Media Pitfalls: Social networks are ineffective for meaningful collaboration and pose potential threats to deliberative public engagement due to their lack of structure and control.

Social media can be counterproductive to deliberative public engagement. By their design, social media are anti-deliberative. They enable bad actors to disrupt and fractionalize public attention and collaboration. There is also the growing presence of bots appearing as residents on government social network accounts posting false information. That makes the government culpable for spreading mis- and disinformation.

Social networks cast a wide net that neither effectively reaches the intended audience nor provides pathways for meaningful input and feedback. Social media can provide channels for broadcasting information to the public. They are not recommended for collaboration or collecting public comment in deliberative processes. Instead, governments should be using dedicated public engagement platforms as issue-networks as alternatives to social networks (see Proposition #6).

Proposition #8: Meeting Resident Expectations: Secure and maintain public support by meeting resident engagement expectations and preferences, fostering two-way communication, and closing the feedback loop.

A fundamental trust issue for public engagement surrounds meeting people where they are, educating and motivating them with information to participate, and following up to inform them how their input impacts decisions. From national surveys conducted in 2022 and 2023 by PublicInput, a provider of community engagement software, the general sentiment expressed by a majority of residents was that many were unaware of opportunities to participate. And when notified, those who did not participate claimed not receiving enough information from the government prevented them from offering an educated response.

The features and functionality of the technology along with supportive project management are crucial to maintaining positive relations by empowering residents and building trust. Public engagement platforms should handle most if not all of the administrative tasks to complete a full engagement life-cycle from notification to education, solicitation, reporting, concluding, and archiving with updates provided throughout.

In conclusion, decentralizing public engagement is not just a shift in using technology, but also a transformation involving the institutional culture of the organization. By embracing the three components—expanding participation scope, flattening hierarchies, and adopting scalable technology platforms—governments can educate and motivate community residents and tap into their knowledge and wisdom. Eight propositions offer a roadmap to navigate the collective challenges and help maximize the benefits of decentralized public engagement. Increasing interest and participation builds trust, and results in more resident inclusion and informed government decisions.

Categories
Democracy Journalism Local Government News Media PIO Public Engagement Public Information

Reimagining the PIO-Journalist Relationship to Build Trust and Inform Society

As an appetizer…

I attended my first 3CMA Annual Conference in Orlando. My presentation tackled the crucial task of rebuilding trust in government, the media, and democracy. I emphasized the roles of government communicators and journalists in informing and educating the public about public affairs and stressed the need for greater cooperation between them. The historic friction between these groups has eroded, mirroring societal polarization. Technological shifts and declining public trust in both institutions have strained their effectiveness and public trust. To rebuild, both must engage their communities and each other. Increasing transparency and modernized, expanded engagement are key, and leveraging technology to bridge the gap. Collaboration is essential for a more informed, educated, and engaged public.

As the main course…

I attended the 3CMA Annual Conference in Orlando last month, marking my first attendance. My familiarity with this great organization of government communicators and marketers dates back to my days as a Public Information Officer (PIO) with the City of Louisville.

Continue reading “Reimagining the PIO-Journalist Relationship to Build Trust and Inform Society”
Categories
Democracy Local Government Public Engagement State Government

Virtual Meetings & State Legislatures

(This is a reprint of a blog post contributed to PublicInput.com)

More state legislatures are enabling virtual public meetings as an option for deliberations and public engagement.

Historically, government officials have been required to meet in person to deliberate about the public’s business. This has been particularly true for meetings that included constituents and their elected representatives. Some states even have laws requiring officials to attend meetings in person.

Face-to-face meetings between elected officials and the public are important.

This is because elected officials can’t ignore people that are right in front of them talking about a problem or a policy. It also helps them put a “face” to a certain issue or law. The public’s physical presence at a meeting can be very impactful when making decisions and could affect the outcome.

Times and technology have changed and public attendance at council meetings or committee meetings usually represents those who have a strong opinion for or against the issue that is being debated and may not represent the voice of the whole community.

The Pursuit of Alternative Means

In March 2020 as the COVID-19 virus became a pandemic, state and local governments were forced to shutter their buildings and halt their in-person proceedings. Alternative means had to be pursued to conduct the public’s business and for the continuation of governance.

For years, the public has had options to view or listen to their governing bodies’ proceedings electronically, whether online, televised, or by radio and officials were physically present in those proceedings. Now, the elected and the electorate would need to segregate from each other and conduct their meetings virtually. Yet, some states had laws that required meetings of public bodies to have the officials present which prevented them from attending virtually.

With the growing pandemic, states had to act fast to enable the government to continue to operate and in a way that would not violate their open government laws surrounding access, participation, and transparency of public meetings.

Executive orders became the norm in most states to enable their governments to continue operations, including holding virtual proceedings. Those emergency orders, however, had deadlines so it was up to state legislatures in those states that restricted virtual attendance to create formal alternatives for convening public meetings.

Fast forward to the summer of 2021

With a year and a half of a continuing (and resurging) pandemic, along with 18 months of positive data about the effectiveness of virtual public meetings (VPM), decisions by state and local governments to meet virtually have taken hold across the nation on whether or not there were legal restrictions preventing them. Today, VPMs as an alternative or complement to in-person meetings are launching a new era of public engagement for governments and for residents.

Recall that not all states have laws requiring in-person attendance by officials that prevent VPMs and therefore do not require legislative action to approve their use. Wyoming is a good example of a state that switched to VPMs over the last year and a half, including hybrid models, to ensure continuity of services and decision-making along with public outreach.

For those states that either required officials’ in-person attendance or wanted to revise legislation to ensure VPMs were included in their public meeting requirements, 17 states had bills filed over the last year that included language pertaining to VPMs, according to BillTrack50, a free research and tracking service of state and federal legislation and legislators from LegiNation, Inc.,

So far, four of the 17 states have signed and enacted legislation to support VPMs (California, Georgia, Nebraska and Utah), while seven are still in committees or have been approved by one chamber and crossed-over to the other. These states include Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Washington. Bills addressing VPMs in six states died in committee or failed on the floor: Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada and Texas.

A New Way to Govern

With or without needed changes to laws to enable VPMs across state and local jurisdictions, many public officials and residents are realizing the benefits along with the challenges of adjusting to VPMs and hybrid models that blend VPMs with in-person meetings.  Residents are enjoying the ease and convenience to learn about and engage their public officials without the challenges to their schedules including traveling to a meeting for whatever reason they may have.

Public officials are seeing the ranks of public participation swell and increased diversity among attendees. Key challenges facing public bodies such as inclusion to hear from more voices in the community are being facilitated using VPMs. The public’s personal preferences surrounding communicating and sharing information with public officials are being met and with greater ease. That helps build more trust between public officials and residents.

Whether out of necessity or in response to a disaster, state and local governments and their constituents are finding VPMs provide a new and welcoming way for governing and advancing democracy in their jurisdictions.

 

Categories
Covid-19 Democracy Public Engagement virtual public meeting

The Cracks in Most Virtual Public Meetings Revealed by COVID-19

(This article was originally posted as a guest blog for PublicInput during Sunshine Week 2021)

Every state has open government laws regarding requirements and policies for public records and public meetings. A year ago, during Sunshine Week 2020, most states enacted emergency orders to rescind those laws due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For state and local governments, in particular, agencies and personnel were faced with an unprecedented challenge to manage operations remotely including their public engagement.

Access to and management of public records and public meetings became a major challenge for the public sector as well as for the public. Bringing together public officials virtually had its own challenges –technical and procedural. However, when it came to ensuring the public would be able to participate in those meetings, chaos emerged.

Technology is supposed to create efficiencies for its users. However, in many cases, virtual public meetings required more staff than conventional public meetings and from agencies that typically do not play a major role in these meetings.

Digital transition and adoption by government have lagged behind the private sector. For two decades, that focus has been prioritized on government’s transactional relationships with the public, e.g., (taking and processing payments, documentation, information searches, and exchanges) and less on interactional relationships, i.e., public engagement, even though end-to-end solutions are available. And the pandemic exposed these shortcomings in a big way.

As the government scrambled to comply with their legal requirements to ensure public and press access to public meetings, we saw three models of virtual public meetings emerge:

  1. Fail: Many jurisdictions wanted to forego all compliance with their open government laws regarding: records and meetings. And many decided not to make the effort if it wasn’t required, and if it was, performed the very basic response to meet the minimum requirements. Lacking the technology capabilities, the training, or just the initiative, the results were poor and unproductive leaving both the government bodies and the public with a lousy experience. Losing the public wasn’t the only consequence. Losing their trust at a critical time during a pandemic is something not easily regained.
  2. Frankenstein: This model emerged from most governments that made efforts to comply with laws and procedures by piecing together multiple technology solutions to handle the tasks. Think about an orchestra: many instrument sections to perform one musical piece. As Miami’s CIO, Mike Sarasti said on Twitter after a March 25 commission meeting, they “used @zoom_us for in-meeting participants, then attendee view was sent out to usual @Granicus, Twitter, FB Feeds. @Qualtrics for Form-based feedback, voicemail via @Cisco setup, @WeTransfer for vid submission. Add a fair share of talented co-workers, & you’re good.” That’s a lot of government cooks in the kitchen. This model is proving unsustainable due to its inefficiency, expense, and unpredictability.
  3. Future: This model represents those governments and agencies that realized and took advantage of end-to-end technology solutions specifically created to manage virtual public meetings/engagement and meet their legal and political responsibilities (like other GovTech solutions developed to handle different administrative responsibilities and requirements in other agencies). Benefits have included increased participation and inclusion, more manageable public input, greater efficiency and productivity, and trust.

One thing we have learned from successful virtual meetings over the last year is that given the opportunity to participate, the public will. However, the quality of the experience will determine whether they return.

Virtual meetings, when working, are being accepted by the public and by the public institutions convening them. Many public officials (especially elected ones) have expressed their desire to return to in-person meetings for that face-to-face experience. However, successful virtual public meetings have made an impressive impact as a way for governments to engage the public and vice versa.

An early concern in the pandemic was that due to the turmoil being created by virtual public meetings, once the virus subsided, governments would return exclusively to in-person meetings, missing the opportunity to create a new era of public engagement. However, that is not happening. New policies and laws are being changed or created to include the continuation of virtual public meetings that can complement or be held in lieu of in-person meetings.

In Boston, efforts are underway to make remote, virtual participation in public hearings and meetings a permanent fixture of city government. Legislation proposed in Nebraska will allow local governments to hold meetings via “virtual conferencing.” Similar efforts are being pushed in South Carolina and other states and local jurisdictions.

An engaged and informed public has economic and civic benefits, and virtual public meetings meet new communication and information needs and expectations of constituents.

The opportunity for governments will be how to structure their public participation to continue virtual public meetings and combine them with in-person meetings as they continue their transition in the digital age of public engagement and democratic practices.

Think of the virtual public meeting as the heart of citizen engagement.

Former Washington State representative Renee Radcliff Sinclair speaking about government transparency and trust said this week: “The COVID-19 pandemic has tested us all in ways we never imagined. And while its long-term societal impacts probably won’t be known for some time, in the short term it has substantially eroded our trust in our cornerstone institutions, including government… So, the question becomes, how do we build back that trust? By giving the public a front-row seat to its proceedings.”

Categories
Democracy

January 6, 2021 and its Impact on Trust

Our nation is exceptionally troubled about the events that occurred on January 6 in the nation’s capital. The subsequent fallout is spreading beyond the crime scene and having a substantial impact including a growing suppression of online (free) speech.

The move by many private social media companies to remove content and participants from their online platforms will add another facet and challenge to a movement that’s been underway by journalism and pro-democracy groups and their related philanthropies to improve trust in media and in democracy in the U.S. Much of their work centers on reforms that address the creation and spread of misinformation and their sources. The recent actions by social media companies to remove inflammatory speech and their creators from their online platforms is an attempt to avert further violence blamed on the spread of misinformation and lies — most of it targeting the media and the government.

January 6 was the flash point and wake-up call to take this practice as a serious societal threat. However, suppression of free expression is also a threat to society. Those whose political ideologies fall on the right are feeling victimized by the actions of these companies to censor their online speech and conversations. For those whose ideologies lean left, while they may applaud the redaction, they need to understand the consequences. Both sides have valid reasons for concern.

While most of us did not foresee an assault on the nation’s capital, we have seen indicators in the inflammatory rhetoric and growing polarization occurring within government and among the public that has dramatically increased (but did not originate) with the election of President Trump.

No one can accurately say how this is going to end. But we see where it is heading. And the negative impact of the actions being taken is dangerous. For example, we know what results from suppressing conversations on mainstream social networks where different ideological points of view are common. Those whose opinions and comments are suppressed retreat to other social networks where contrary points of view are all but absent in these filter bubbles where the conversations are more extreme and the participants are more radical. This is not what we want and certainly not a way to bring folks with different opinions together.

The historical public square and the openness of public meetings by our governing institutions were designed intentionally to allow broad public participation in conversations and decisions about issues that affected the whole. Today, the public square is digital, having been taken over by private companies whose priority is to pursue profit, not democracy, which makes sense. However, their platforms are being utilized by both the public and their government institutions to serve as forums for political and policy discussions.

Unfortunately, governments still struggle to replicate the important components of our democracy (public comment and free expression) as they transitioned to the Internet. The broken promise of “Gov 2.0” has been the failure to bridge the chasm between the electors and the electorate that it touted would occur online by improving communication and information sharing and consequently, our democracy.

Instead, private companies, lacking the guardrails that the government operates with, assumed a facilitator role not by design but by default and the potential for revenue. Key components important to ensure informed and engaged dialog like attribution and validation were replaced by anonymity and disparagement. They are called “social” networks for a reason.

We can’t fall back to our bunkers. We have to have more conversations that include representatives from the public, press, and public sector, with support from the GovTech community to collaborate on the many complex challenges. I read a recent blog that stated “…when it comes to building trust, there are no home runs, doubles, or triples — just countless sacrifice bunts.” The change will be incremental, but it can happen. What occurred on January 6th in D.C. has added more urgency and increased the odds of rebuilding trust in our democracy, our news media, and in others.

Categories
Democracy Journalism Local Government

From Bad Bills Come Bad Laws: A Proactive Prescription for Restoring Trust in Government and Democracy

When the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation announced in March a $300 million investment to improve the quality of local news, it made an important first step to restoring trust in a key component of our society.

The funding decision was spurred by a recent report from the Knight Commission on Trust, Media and Democracy, which explored the disconnect between the public, the press, and our public institutions, notably the government.

Its conclusion: We are in a watershed moment and must make reforms in our media and civic infrastructure.

The report advances a series of recommendations aimed at the news media, civic educators, and the public. And while the report urges “every government official to be open and transparent,” what is missing is a list of reforms required in our federal, state, and local governments to help restore trust.

Instructing government to be transparent is not enough. Restoring trust in democracy through our public institutions must include reforms in all branches to ensure openness, access and accountability.

Knight addresses one area of needed reforms by granting $10 million to the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press to increase litigation efforts to defend access to public information. This is an important and welcome investment to ensure our First Amendment rights.

Even so, building trust in government requires a strong offense as well as a strong defense. The National Freedom of Information Coalition and its state coalitions support a multi-faceted approach beyond reactionary litigation to usher in needed reforms.

Most litigation challenges bad laws that lead to bad policies. But before they were bad laws, they were bad bills. A proactive, holistic approach to needed legislative and policy reforms can prevent these bad laws and poor public policies from being created in the first place.

It’s a daunting task to enact reforms that promote trust in our public institutions in an era where more and more governments, particularly state legislatures, attempt to undermine existing open government precedent, making it harder for journalists and the public to monitor and report violations that diminish access and accountability.

But there are areas that have shown results to increase transparency and accountability of our public institutions and should be instilled in all public institutions across the nation:

· Legislative tracking. Bad bills can be identified and fought early. Yet this is not an easy task. Many state legislatures can bury amendments that dismantle existing open government laws or increase exemptions to existing laws in the text of unrelated bills — hiding them from the public until it’s too late.

· Compliance enforcement. State and local governments across the nation inconsistently comply with their open government laws. Sometimes it’s a lack of training and education. Other times it’s intentional. Enforcement of existing open government laws is critical to discourage violations. Yet violators are rarely charged and when they are, punishment is usually a slap on the wrist.

· Formal appeals processes. Some states don’t have an appeals process when a record is denied, leaving the petitioner no option but to sue, which creates a financial burden not only on the requestor but also on the taxpayer. Independent state open records ombudspersons are a way some states combat this issue. Fee shifting, where the losing government agency pays the legal fees of the prevailing petitioner is another.

· Technology solutions. Open data and online request portals readily provide public access to public records, establish or advance professional standards, and help create best practices within executive branch agencies.

Without public oversight, without creating more professionalism in administering state open government laws and policies, and without an internal culture to punish violators, there will always be inevitable situations where a bad bill is passed, or when a public agency continues to deny access in violation of their state open government laws. And the only option is to sue.

Still, through enacting reforms in all branches of state and local governments, and proactively monitoring and educating the public (and officials of their responsibilities), we can help restore trust in our democracy by restoring trust in our public institutions.

Daniel Bevarly is executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes press freedom and legislative and administrative reforms that ensure open, transparent, and accessible state and local governments. Reach him at dbevarly@nfoic.org.

Categories
Citizen Engagement citizenship Civics Democracy

Solving the “Civic Infrastructure” Challenge through Innovation

tinker-toys3The Knight Foundation is responsible for bringing together 100 civic innovators from across the country to Miami this week to “tackle some of the thorniest questions on the future of cities.” Dubbed the “Civic Innovation in Action Studio,” Knight hopes to “develop a set of investment-worthy experiments that will be piloted in communities” to tackle challenges around harnessing talent, advancing opportunity and increasing engagement.

 

Most of these challenges surround the strength and quality of a community’s civic infrastructure. Civic Infrastructure has been defined as “the foundation for our democracy” and “the mechanism where key community stakeholders can address systemic problems and work towards solutions.” It’s also been defined as the system of “social connections, decision-making processes, difficult conversations and informal networks that influence how the people in a community function.”

 

Suffice it to say there is enough substance within these definitions to establish a sense of organization and purpose for what constitutes a civic infrastructure.  Other descriptions may touch on the soul, vibe or rhythm of the social and economic connectivity within a community. What we are looking at is whether its presence is strong or weak and whether it is deeply rooted in a community or a mere veneer that exists only in terminology.

 

The Knight Foundation and its “civic innovator participants” will wrestle not only with answers for solutions but also with questions surrounding the challenges.

 

“Civics” and “citizenship” are common terms that will be tossed about during this three day event. These terms have enjoyed a long history and tradition in our nation and communities. However, our nation and its cities have transformed and it’s time we reconsider what those terms mean in today’s society and economy.

 

We also have to reexamine society’s role and its different components in these areas.  What is the role of government and the public sector?  How has public policy impacted communities? What is the role of citizens (now more appropriately identified as “residents”)? How has diversification within society and income levels impacted communities? What is the role of the private sector? Has private resources or lack thereof had an impact on communities?

 

What about new challenges from sweeping changes in communication and information sharing technologies? And just as equally, how can these changes help address and devise solutions?

 

I don’t believe anyone expects a silver bullet to come from these short proceedings this week in Miami. Societal changes are incremental no matter how fast and expansive information travels and personal connectivity can occur today. I’d settle for a couple of “A-ha” moments that give direction to further exploration, which, I suspect Knight is seeking as it continues its admirable investment to improve America’s civic infrastructure.

Categories
Democracy Gov2.0 Governing open data open government Politics Transparency

Embracing Incrementalism: Open Data program managers need excellent peripheral vision

locked

I recently delved into Mark Headd’s insightful blog post, “Don’t Hang Any Pictures,” where he imparts wisdom to those steering open data programs in local governments. He provides a practical list of “Do’s” and “Don’ts,” serving as a compass for smoother and more successful project implementation. As the title suggests, his central advice revolves around avoiding complacency. I’ll add another one: Incrementalism (think tortoise in the “Tortoise and the Hare.)”

In my 13 years of experience within local government, coupled with a career in public administration, I’ve come to recognize the significance of incrementalism. It’s not just a strategy; it’s a way of life within the governmental realm. You can push or pull as much and as hard as you like, but there will be limits in all directions no matter how determined or how gifted you are.  Why do you think they call the government an “institution?”  Regardless of determination or skill, pushing or pulling too hard encounters limitations inherent in the bureaucratic nature of government.

Moving in increments frustrates public administrators, legislators, and citizens. And it’s also deeply woven into the fabric of our democracy. The tension between the desire for swift change and the reality of incremental progress has been a defining characteristic of our government.

While some embrace incrementalism as a key to a successful public sector career, others resist or revolt, leading to premature exits from government service. Others, still, adopt the bureaucratic characteristic of incrementalism to piece together complacent, yet lack-luster careers in government characterized by lowered expectations and initiative, and a don’t-rock-the-boat mentality.

Elected officials face an additional layer of complexity, given the limited timeframe of their terms. Major initiatives, such as community revitalization projects, often span multiple administrations, demanding strategic planning to ensure continuity and dedicated resources over an extended period.

Integrating communication and information technology into government projects, particularly initiatives like opening data to the public, has to be the greatest challenge. Capping the speed and flexibility of electronic information and communication and applying rigid, even restrictive guidelines to its access and content in an environment known for moving slowly.

This challenge is keenly felt by CIOs, CDOs, and MIS professionals tasked with open data initiatives, facing the delicate balance of moving at the right pace, which may not always align with the elected officials’ or the public’s expectations.

Doug Robinson, the director of NASCIO, a boutique national organization of state and territory government CIOS, can attest to the ever-changing landscape of senior leadership positions within top IT positions. The turnover within this role is unparalleled, reflecting the dynamic nature of the challenges they confront.

Headd’s advice to “not get comfortable” and to recognize the temporary nature of public service is a sad reminder. While this may be true in certain cases, government IT professionals should not assume that short tenures are inevitable. Success in one administration can lead to opportunities in another, presenting an opportunity to contribute their knowledge and expertise to new open data challenges.

In conclusion, embracing incrementalism is not a concession to inefficiency but a pragmatic acknowledgment of the intricacies within the governmental machinery. It requires a delicate balance between pushing for progress and respecting the established processes, ensuring that the journey towards open data initiatives is both sustainable and impactful.

 

 

Categories
Citizen Engagement citizenship Civics Civility Democracy Governing Politics Public Comment public communications management

It’s Political Season, so “Let’s Be Careful Out There”

I recently waded into a political discussion on my Facebook feed started by a very politically passionate relative who has many, many ultra-politically passionate “friends” of whom I know none of them. Anyway, I shared a differing POV with the participants and even tinged it with a little humor (at least what I thought to be humor). The hailstorm was unleashed. What had I done? No name calling, no slanderous comments, no one-upmanship; I just shared a different POV of how I saw the topic.

In Florida, the “Mean Season” is the mid- to late-Summer thunder storms that affect the state’s southern weather almost daily noted by huge downpours and lightning strikes. Political season could also be called the mean season. But I don’t remember it always being that way.

Now, many people who voice an opinion or point of view seem to be intolerant of anyone who doesn’t share that same view. Make a dissenting comment in response and you’ve instantly got an Army of haters lined up to shut you down –like a proverbial kicking in the teeth.

In this threaded discussion, or threaded tongue lashing, I simply tried to state I disagreed and was entitled to voice an opinion. That didn’t help. When I finally went mute, the others saw it as a victory and continued to pelt me with triumphant comments that my silence was an admission that I was wrong and they were right. I never thought anyone was going for a “win” in the discussion.

No wonder I see less political yard signs and bumper stickers today so as not to rile an opposing side. I read where many offices restrict political discussions from occurring in their workplaces so as “not to offend” fellow workers. Really? Offend?

Government is a representation of (all) the citizens it serves, and electing people into office is how citizens actively participate and influence that representative process. Government is not sports; it’s democracy.

So however, you plan to participate in this upcoming national election whether as a spectator or a player (note the sports analogy), there are levels of involvement you may want to consider as you navigate those waters. Just like a police officer who patrols Beverly Hills or South Bronx, your level of sensitivity will be affected by your surroundings. My advice? As Hill Street Blues’ Sgt. Phil Esterhaus (played by actor Michael Conrad) would always say as his trademark phrase at the conclusion of roll call: “Let’s be careful out there.”