Open Gov National Action Plan workshops - October 27th and 28th

[Philip Ashlock - QQA]

Hi All, 

As part of the U.S. Open Government National Action Plan co-creation, the Federal government is continuing to engage with civil society to craft themes and specific commitments. To that end, we are organizing two engagement sessions to provide updates to civil society members on the status of the National Action Plan, to gather feedback on draft themes and commitment areas, and discuss new ideas for themes and commitments.

We are planning two sessions: on October 27th from 10am to 12pm ET and October 28th from 11:30am to 1:30pm ET. The sessions will include discussions facilitated by White House staff, divided by potential themes in the National Action Plan. The themes under consideration for discussion include, among others:

1. Transforming customer experience and service delivery
2. Improving access to government data, research, and information
3. Engaging the public in the work of government
4. Countering corruption and ensuring government integrity and accountability to the public

A through line across all of these themes is advancing equity for, and engaging with, underserved communities. This is consistent with the Biden-Harris Administration’s central focus on supporting communities that have faced exclusion from social, economic, and civic life. We are also incorporating this through line in the process of developing National Action Plan commitments, building on outreach and engagement to underserved communities across Federal agencies since the start of the Biden-Harris Administration.

We are inviting up to two representatives per organization to join these sessions. We invite you to RSVP to join here:

• Thursday, October 27th 10am – 12pm ET - Register for Zoom teleconference
• Friday, October 28th 11:30am – 1:30pm ET - Register for Zoom teleconference

Please feel free to share this invitation broadly with other partners you might work with. The invitation is also available online here. We also encourage written feedback you might have for the National Action Plan to be shared by email to ope...@ostp.eop.gov.

This is a closed press event and following past sessions we will follow Chatham House rules. While we encourage attendees to share their individual perspective and feedback, we will not be seeking consensus recommendations at the events.

We appreciate your collaboration in this process and we are looking forward to hearing your feedback. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any ideas, reactions, or questions you might have.

Best,
Phil

--

Philip Ashlock
GSA Technology Transformation Services 

[alexande...@gmail.com]

Thank you for the update, Phil!

I've RSVP'ed for next week. Beforehand, I wanted to highlight specific concerns with the closed approach that the US government is choosing after not publicly communicating with the press, public, or stakeholder groups since the public meeting in May.

First, when the co-creation process was announced this spring, there were expectation set that we'd be hearing from the US government over the past five months and participating in an iterative, open process of reviewing the problem statements, research and proposed commitments you solicited. That can't happen until the US government shares what was sent, so that we can all see inputs and offer feedback on policy, personnel, legislative, regulatory, or programmatic proposals. Will we get to see the inputs prior to the workshop so that there can be equity in knowledge between civil society and government, which is at the heart of OGP's aspirational platform?

Second, is this the start of re-engaging with civil society, or the end? Will there be more workshops in November that include the public and press? As you know, the US government's 8th commitment in the 4th NAP was to "Expand Public Participation in Developing Future U.S. National Action Plans" https://open.usa.gov/assets/files/NAP4-fourth-open-government-national-action-plan.pdf

"Citizen engagement and public participation are among the most important elements of the NAP co-creation process.During the development of this NAP4, everyday Americans provided some of the most thoughtful and engaging ideas. As we begin to contemplate a fifth national action plan, we will prioritize including a more geographically diverse and diffuse representation of citizen stakeholders in the development of the document. We will aim to conduct a series of consultation sessions, in-person interviews, meetings, and livestreamed discussions around the country to generate ideas, encourage public input, and engage in conversations with the most important stakeholder – the American public."

There has been no engagement outside of this mailing list and three virtual meetings that the White House and GSA have not publicized: there have been no press releases, press conferences, social media messages, presidential statements, or other public-facing messaging regarding OGP or the co-creation process. If these are important elements, when should we expect to see the White House Office of Public Engagement and agency communications staff engage the American public and encourage public participation in co-creation? If we don't see amplification beyond this list serv and a presidential commitment to implement the plan, why should civil society regard this as a meaningful use of our limited staff time and organizational capacity?

Two Zoom meetings closed to the press do not meet this past commitment, nor OGP's co-creation standards, which have been revised since the last cycle in the USA.

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ogp-participation-co-creation-standards/ For those unfamiliar, the 5 standards are:

• Standard 1: Establishing a space for ongoing dialogue and collaboration between government, civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders.
• Standard 2: Providing open, accessible and timely information about activities and progress within a member’s participation in OGP.
• Standard 3: Providing inclusive and informed opportunities for public participation during co-creation of the action plan.
• Standard 4: Providing a reasoned response and ensuring ongoing dialogue between government and civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders as appropriate during co-creation of the action plan.
• Standard 5: Providing inclusive and informed opportunities for ongoing dialogue and collaboration during implementation and monitoring of the action plan.

Note that public participation is bolded and required. If OGP is to have any shot and being an effective for civil society, the American people must be engaged and involved in a way that they have never been since OGP was founded. As OGP acknowledged recently, the US is currently violating the standards for co-creation; these closed meetings do not change this condition.

Third, the press is a key stakeholder in open government in any democracy, much less the United States of America. The co-creation process for an open government plan should be open by default, not opaque by preference. The precedents the Obama administration set for Chatham House rules and exclusion of journalists was a poor one, and its reification by the Trump administration further undermined the process, outcome, and impact. These two meetings may offer a starting place for stakeholders re-engage, but they cannot and must not be the end point. If you would like to discuss how other governments have (or have not) engaged the press in the OGP process or how to integrate journalists into co-creation process, I have 12

Fourth, existing administration priorities around service delivery, IT modernization, or design must not be substituted for core commitments related to transparency, accountability, ethics reform, or good governance. "Transforming customer experience and service delivery" is a valuable, useful mission for federal agencies, but it is not open government. If the US government attempts to make service delivery or CX an open government commitment, you can and should expect civil society to publicly reject it as openwashing. If this theme were to be reframed as "transforming requestor experience and delivery of requests made under the Freedom of Information Act" or " transforming the experience of accessing open government data and opening algorithms for public sector services, that might not be the case, but the last decade has shown how governments around the world have substituted e-government for open government in OGP. The US can and should do better.

Finally, I appreciate the desire of the administration to map existing programs or policies onto OGP, as the last one did, but co-creation with US civil society means we should have an equal role in shaping the themes and commitments in the plan. I'm glad to hear that we will not be limited to the preselected themes or draft commitments that the US government has proposed. It violates the spirit and standards of OGP to pre-define 4 themes for discussion, especially when ethics reform and FOI remain central to good governance in the USA.

For instance, the OGP working paper from last May (https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Seize-the-Moment_20210520.pdf) highlighted 5 policy priority areas "that were repeatedly emphasized" in previous cycles:
• "Democracy: Ensure core democracy and good government reforms
• Disclosure: Release and declassify information for accountability and the public good
• Data: Regulate technology and generate more usable data
• Justice: Criminal justice and access to justice reforms
• Global Commitments: Further implement international pledges and related laws

US civil society drafted and submitted 48 recommendations on open government that were submitted in the forms GSA posted:

https://blueprintforaccountability.us/progress-report/#open-government

I look forward to hearing more from the administration on all of these counts and seeing many of you on-screen next week. As a reminder, if the US does not produce a new plan that has been co-created with civil society under the standards set out by OGP by the end of 2022, the country will be put under review again.

 As you may have seen, I have requested that we be placed under review now, given the silence of the past five months and complete lack of public engagement and promotion by the White House, & suggested making our nation inactive in 2023 if there is not a sea change in public engagement, press involvement, and presidential involvement.

Cordially,

Alex Howard