(cross posted from our Google Group)

Jon Henke wrote the following provocation, and I decided to respond to the whole list, since it's a topic I think many here will be interested in. (I asked his permission to post in full.)

His email is first, and then my responses:

I had a fascinating conversation with a team leader from the GAO today, and two thoughts occurred to me:

1. GAO reports are done at the request of Congressmen, publicly available, and (as I understand it) reasonably dispassionate and thorough. Would it be possible (or useful) to have a sympathetic Senator request a GAO report on the use of technology in the Senate? Or on opportunities for Congressional transparency?

Whether it arrived in time to be useful to the Open Senate Project (doubtful), the examination process should provide very helpful ideas and motivation for progress. Perhaps a broader study could even provide a template for how the Obama administration could deploy technology and transparency to the executive branch agencies.

1. GAO studies typically last around a year, and upon their completion they are published online. But why are they only published when they are done? This is a public interest process. Why not make the public part of the process? Once a study is commissioned, and the outline of the project (what will be studied, how, what data is considered, etc) is devised, why not put that online and allow public comment about each section? If the GAO is studying veterans benefits, why just have a small team examining whatever evidence they can find? This is a job that screams "crowdsourcing/wisdom of crowds".

What's more, a collaborative process would both (a) allow input and ideas from citizens, and (b) allow experts (and yes, lobbyists) to make their arguments publicly, where they can (and should) be considered and integrated into the thought process. That could provide a useful way to evaluate the reports and the input of various groups, too (Did their predictions obtain in reality? Were important ideas ignored?)

Thoughts?

(and now responses)

I had a fascinating conversation with a team leader from the GAO today, and two thoughts occurred to me:

1. GAO reports are done at the request of Congressmen, publicly available, and (as I understand it) reasonably dispassionate and thorough. Would it be possible (or useful) to have a sympathetic Senator request a GAO report on the use of technology in the Senate? Or on opportunities for Congressional transparency?

I agree with the first sentence. There's a backlog of reports requested, though, and first priority is given to committee chairs' requests. (Here's the GAO document (pdf) that lays out their triage arrangement for requests.) They're also all public, although some of them are withheld from web publication by agency request.

I'm not sure how likely it is that GAO (or Congress) would prepare a report on transparency; CRS is more likely to respond (or to be asked) to prepare such a report. One recent, very similar report was prepared by Walter Oleszek, which I reviewed here, in September of 2007. I'm not sure if the report has been updated since, but it's a great resource.

Applying GAO to Congress isn't done all that frequently (as far as I'm aware), since GAO is a legislative support agency (like CRS or CBO), though of a slightly different type, acting often more like an executive agency. GAO's statutory requirement to review financial disclosure within all 3 branches has been (apparently) routinely ignored since approximately 1990.

Whether it arrived in time to be useful to the Open Senate Project (doubtful), the examination process should provide very helpful ideas and motivation for progress. Perhaps a broader study could even provide a template for how the Obama administration could deploy technology and transparency to the executive branch agencies.

With those cautions in mind, I'd love to see a GAO review of transparency in Congress, or even across all three branches, especially since many of the disclosure requirements have roots in the same laws (like the Ethics in Government Act, which sets financial disclosure requirements for high ranking staff in all three branches.) This is probably one among many tools to spur Congress into some constructive introspection, including CRS reports, committee hearings, legislation, sense of the Congress resolutions, informal advisory recommendations (cf this list, OMBWatch's report, or the ABA rulemaking report), lawsuits, committee reports, rulebreakers and internal champions, media coverage, etc. It would likely have to come from some committee chair (or leadership figure) with relevant jurisdiction, like a leg. branch approps chair, government reform chair (in the House) or gov't affairs cmte chair (in the Senate).

2. GAO studies typically last around a year, and upon their completion they are published online. But why are they only published when they are done? This is a public interest process. Why not make the public part of the process? Once a study is commissioned, and the outline of the project (what will be studied, how, what data is considered, etc) is devised, why not put that online and allow public comment about each section? If the GAO is studying veterans benefits, why just have a small team examining whatever evidence they can find? This is a job that screams "crowdsourcing/wisdom of crowds".

I agree with this in spirit, but I strongly fear unintended consequences here. Take the Office of Legislative Counsel, for example. This is a quiet, isolated room full of legal scholars with expertise in the actual drafting of laws. They operate under strict guidelines over what they can share, since the same drafters could conceivably be asked to write opposing bills for political opponents. Maintaining confidentiality and objectivity is essential, since everyone has an interest in trusting that bills will be well written.

The same is true for some CRS documents (those we're NOT asking to have published), where Members sometimes turn for confidential advice. I think confusion between these documents and the circulable documents causes some of the resistance to an open CRS we find on the hill.

GAO, not unlike a police department, needs whatever tools are necessary for effective oversight, and publishing only completed documents probably falls into that category.

What's more, a collaborative process would both (a) allow input and ideas from citizens, and (b) allow experts (and yes, lobbyists) to make their arguments publicly, where they can (and should) be considered and integrated into the thought process. That could provide a useful way to evaluate the reports and the input of various groups, too (Did their predictions obtain in reality? Were important ideas ignored?)

Again, with those cautions in place, I'm a HUGE fan of the idea that an empowered public can strengthen our checks and balances, and reinstate effective oversight both within and between branches. That's why I'd like to see a collection of upcoming reports to Congress (since it would empower public watchdogs and oversight staff alike), and why I started the (now defunct) Congressional Committees Project two years ago.

Integrating public activity into carefully constructed government processes can be tricky, which is one reason that the Peer to Patent Project's success is so impressive -- it's obviously the product of some brilliant and careful planning.

I'd love to see oversight committees, GAO, or even CRS start to address the possibilities presented to them by communities such as this one, but the first steps are hard to find, especially for as heated a topic as oversight, where jurisdictions are carefully protected, and where the stakes are especially high for those under investigation. If even commenting on the quintessentially public bill is so hard to implement, a publicly empowered oversight process will be even tougher to generate.

It's a good first step, though, that people within those institutions we wish to change are following along closely (many are on this list), and that policy makers and the media are recognizing the developing capacity for public relevance.

The Washington Examiner was kind enough to publish an Op-Ed I wrote on transparency in the new administration.

The starting paragraphs:

The history of the American experiment has seen a constant struggle for fundamental change and reinvention. President-elect Obama ran on change, and now faces high expectations for a radical transformation in how the public relates to the presidency. At the core of every “government reform” initiative has been the urgent sense that government was failing in its basic responsibilities, and that citizens' needs were not being adequately represented in Washington. Caused by economic hardship, government waste, flagrant corruption or over-concentrated power, these eras all saw constituents' hostility coalesce into new expectations, to which public officials were forced to respond. Now is no different. Obama campaigned in accord with the anti-incumbent mood, placing change and innovation over tradition and experience, running as an agent of reform.

Starting today, you'll be seeing blog posts three times a week on the Sunlight Foundation blog.

Building on the enthusiastic spirit of reform chronicled by Gabriela in our recently posted Open Letter to the Obama Administration, Sunlight staff will be reviewing and analyzing reform recommendations as prepared by our peers, like OMBWatch, the Constitution Project, or the Sunshine in Government Initiative.

While the recently envigorated world of transition white papers can be dauntingly complex, as even a quick look at our Congresspedia page on transition resources will attest, we believe that policy is at its best when it's developed and discussed in public.

Many of the recommendations we'll be reviewing have been prepared by large communities of experts and stakeholders, and we want to be sure that all of their hard work gets the exposure it deserves.

To make it easier to follow along as the posts are published, all of the policy review posts will be tagged "policyreview," which you can see through this page, or you can just watch for "PolicyReview" in the title of Sunlight blog posts.

We expect to learn a great deal by going through all of the detailed recommendations prepared for the incoming administration, and we hope that you will too.

Sunlight is very happy to endorse a new report, Acheiving the Potential, The Future of Federal E-Rulemaking. (pdf)

The report is the result of months of work and negotiations from agency employees, academics, former administrators, and experts in rulemaking.

Their task wasn't simple, since e-rulemaking combines some of the toughest technological challenges facing the federal government.  A combination of uncertain funding, poor cross-agency coordination, unclear authority structures, perverse involvement incentives, and spotty data and procedural standardization all stand in the way of a truly successful government-wide e-rulemaking portal.

The scope of the e-rulemaking challenge only makes this report's production more remarkable.

Chaired by former OIRA head Sally Katzen, and ably prepared by Cynthia Farina, Cornell Law Professor, the initiative boasts an impressive list of working group participants from private industry, non-profits, and government.  I understand that this working group, unlike many advisory committees, saw intense negotiations and collaboration, since e-rulemaking's footprint makes for an immense shared stake across different sectors.

The whole report is worth a read, and serves as a great introduction to the current state of regulatory authority, federal IT management successes and shortfalls, and a roadmap to a modernized e-rulemaking system.  The effort itself is also worth close consideration, as it serves as a compelling example of a public-private and cross agency initiative built on practical concerns and established expertise.

We're happy to add our endorsement to their effort, and hope implementation of their recommendations is as successful as their formation.

Sometimes the most potent advocacy tool is a well formed list.  This is what makes Sunlight's Insanely Useful Websites so popular, in addition to being so, well, useful).

I've been tracking and sorting several fields of work relevant to transparency and civic information, and would like to share these lists, with the hope that similar efforts can benefit from each other.

I'd like to start with a list of executive transition projects.  While any whitepaper or policy proposal could, in some sense, count as an executive transition project, there are a number of projects preparing proposals and principles for the next administration that focus on process and public involvement, engaging in the operations and management of government, and have implications for the potential roles an engaged public might play in a newly organized executive.

The model for modern executive transition work is the Heritage Foundation's "Mandate for Leadership", written for an incoming Reagan administration in 1980.  The proliferation of public interest organizations and the expansion of government management professionals has led to an expanding variety of focused executive transition projects.  While proposals aimed at the administrations-to-be have become somewhat commonplace, they still operate largely in solitude, devoid of a larger context that might connect their similarities, build consensus, and draw on shared expertise.

The following collection of transition projects reflects my involvement in several of them, my tracking of their work, and suggestions brought up at a recent conference hosted by Demos and AmericaSpeaks.  I'm particularly interested in any similar projects I'm missing, or in highlighting the work that more formally addresses process oriented agenda setting for the next administration.  The list starts with projects with more formal agendas, and then lists organizations with a strong focus on process issues.

• OMBWatch is organizing a 21st Century Right to Know project, preparing recommendations for a transparent executive branch.  (pdf)
• The Personal Democracy Forum prepared the book "Rebooting America" in conjunction with their latest conference, collecting essays reimagining the executive in the face radically transformative technology.
• The Center for American Progress has held numerous transition-oriented events.
• The American Enterprise Institute had a Transition to Governing Project from 1999 to 2001, I don't know if it was replaced.
• The Heritage Foundation publishes ongoing issue briefs (not sure if there's formal agenda setting in the works).
• The Center for Democracy and Technology has published detailed recommendations, subject to commentary on their Web site.
• Carnegie and Time are cosponsoring a forum on public service on September 11th and 12th.
• The National Academy of Public Administration provides ongoing support and recommendations for improving government, with a focus on collaboration and management.
• The Transitions in Governance Coalition brings together academic, industry, and non-profit partners to prepare transition recommendations.
• Openthegovernment.org has prepared and testified on numerous executive reform topics (through Patrice McDermott's work), and McDermott's Who Needs to Know could (should) be seen as an executive openness agenda.
• The IBM Center for the Business of Government hosts a 2008 Presidential Transition Initiative blog, written by John Kamensky, who has extensive experience with government management and executive transition issues.
• The November 5th Coalition focuses on deliberation and public involvement.
• The Center for Government and Technology has prepared several issue briefs and has strong connections with existing government officials in the e-government and government management spaces.
• The Next Agenda was prepared as a progressive agenda by the Campaign for America's Future.  (I'm unsure if there's a similar current effort.)
• Newt Gingrich's American Solutions has a strong focus on governance issues.
• In a sense, the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society could be seen as complementary ongoing transition projects.
• Carl Malamud's IGOTF work has agenda setting relevance, establishing best-practices from established communities working around public access issues, with the open government data principles being most notable among them.
• A brief listing of transition and agenda setting bodies within government:  the GAO produces lists of at-risk government projects, GSA has recently published new data publication guidelines, the Council of CIOs works with all agency CIOs, and OMB sets government management policy.  The two most relevant congressional committees are the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
• The parties and campaigns also publish policy proposals and platforms, though I'm not researching them here.