Food for Thought Blog

Food for Thought Blog

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.

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.

With cybersecurity hot, now is the time to open government

 

This article originally appeared in STATESCOOP

Commentary: Opening data isn’t at odds with IT security, but supports it, says the executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition.


With governments focused on tighter security measures surrounding sensitive data, now is an opportune time to adopt reforms that also remove obstacles to open public records and improve access.

Updating open government laws, and reforming policies and practices can yield numerous benefits — economic and political — and free resources to focus on malicious cyberattacks and ongoing data security.

State and local governments face a real threat from hackers infiltrating government IT systems and accessing personal and sensitive information. State CIOs, once again, identified security as their top priority in the National Association of State Chief Information Officers’ Top Ten list for 2019.

However, the government must provide ongoing access to public records that is distinct from its responsibility to prevent illegal access to private information.

The best way to enact reforms is for government to take a holistic approach to the way public institutions manage transparency and public records. With better legislation and administrative guidelines, agencies can vastly improve access to public records and meet the growing challenge of digital public records as they are created.  Here are four ways to make government more open:

  1. Disclose proactively

This is the act of releasing information before it is requested (or shortly after it is). Public records such as meeting minutes, reports, schedules, and data sets can be posted to an agency’s website or centralized in a designated online public records repository. The source can be a government server or one managed by an external third party through cloud services, as cited in the NASCIO survey to address growing data storage.

  1. Improve training and education

Time is money. So are costs associated with litigation which, unfortunately, is sometimes the result of poor FOI administration. Better and ongoing training and education of employees can increase agency efficiency and lower admin costs.

  1. Adopt professional standards and best practices

Fulfilling open records requests is a daily task. However, most agencies treat public records requests as a distraction or an “add-on” to their programs and services. Developing behaviors to increase proficiency and decrease expenses can be replicated in other agencies, such as tracking time and costs to process requests and maintaining a log of agency responses.

  1. Change the culture

Advance an internal mindset that addresses open records fulfillment as a public service responsibility, not a distraction. Quantify it as a line item on the budget. After all, it is the law.

Viewing their role as a steward and facilitator, government agencies can secure public information without restricting it. This creates both financial and political benefits by increasing responsiveness, accountability, and trust while focusing more resources on securing protected information.

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.

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.