Schools opened across Florida this week and in many other states I expect.  An article in my Sunday newspaper caught my eye and provided the idea for this post.  The article stated for the first time in my county, minorities will make up the majority of students in the public schools. Many of the kids that have come into our school district over the past year came here from outside the US not only qualifying some of them as ethnic minorities by definition, but also as immigrants.  And the story stated that a third of the public school systems in Florida’s 66 counties now have minorities outnumbering traditional majority, or white students.

Demographers have been stating for years that diversity in America is growing steadily and the first signs of this dramatic shift will be among the 18 and under population. So what does this changing ethnic and immigrant makeup among our school children and in our society in general have to do with civics, government or public participation?  Well, plenty, especially when paired with another trend occurring in our educational system.

This is a trend that has been emerging for some time in our schools.  It’s the absence of civics and government courses included in the curriculum.  I remember taking specific classes in government democracy and civics in my elementary and high school years.  And I’ve seen, or rather, have not seen these specific subjects among the classes being taught in public schools today.  I’ve found myself filling in the gaps of civics teachings or providing an understanding about how government and democracy works in casual conversations with my teen daughters–concepts I would expect to be covered in the classroom.

Going back beyond my school days, teaching civics and democracy in the classroom was a big deal.  Take a look at a 1954 8th grade civics test at the end of this blog.  Seven pages! Do you think you could pass this one using today’s information?

If parents have to serve as a primary source of civics education to their children, using their prior schooling and personal experiences, then we  can consider this to be a dwindling resource at best.  Regardless of a parents’ upbringing, whether it was in this country or abroad, there’s been a chipping away of the nation’s civic foundation and teachings of our system of democracy that is creating a vacuum of knowledge that will impact us as a nation and as individuals.

Of particular note is to consider this affect on minorities and immigrants.  If we know the subjects are not being addressed through schools, then how will this growing segment of our society gain this knowledge? Their parents? It’s probably accurate to say there’s a general lack of knowledge about civics and/or participation in our system of government that they can pass on to their children.

Is this important? What does this mean for the future of our communities, and for our system of local, state and federal government, and for public policy making?  If the trend continues, i.e., less educational opportunities to teach/learn civics and government, with a growing population (both majority and minority) that lacks a foundation or experience in either of these, then we can expect a continuing polarization between government  officials and their constituents.  But it is even more than simply a gap.

For example, where the number of ethnic minorities generally are not represented in their local and state governments (due in part to a lack of exposure to this sector, and hence maybe a lack of understanding about or a disinterest in government careers or running for an elective office), then we may see public policy decisions weighted more toward the majority that is currently represented in these governing bodies.

“What’s new,” you ask? What’s new is while today the majority that makes up the governing bodies of these public institutions is still representative as the majority population.  But as this majority becomes the minority in general, they may still continue to dominate positions in government institutions. Then we might see patterns where these ethnic majority policy makers favor their ethnic minority population when making decisions that affect the whole.

As a graduate student in 2006, Michiko Ueda, in her essays on political representation may provide some insight to this scenario.  Ms. Ueda found that her data “reveals that the presence of racial minorities in the (state) legislature seemed to have positively affected minorities as a whole, not just those residing in districts represented by African Americans.”  This is sort of the reverse scenario that I mention, yet applies to the same sort of decision making process.

Do we know in fact that our young people have lost or are losing their foundation of knowledge about civics and democracy? To explore whether there is a trend developing toward civic/democracy ignorance among students, we could conduct a study among tenured college professors who teach courses in political science, public administration, civics etc.  We could ask about their observations whether incoming freshmen, for example, display a lack of understanding or exposure to the basic concepts and principals these topics.

Are we entering a new period about how future generations’ understanding, grasp and response to our historical democratic processes will have a profound effect on our system of governance?  How will future societies respond to the concept of civic responsibility if they have not been exposed to its basic concepts.  Here’s an even bigger question:  Is our historic and traditional concept of civics and democracy more suited to a nation containing a mostly homogeneous society where can it more easily be interpreted and applied, or does it transcend it and has the capacity to accommodate a wider diversity among its members?

Teaching civics and how government and democracy works is important and should be a formalized part of our elementary and high school curriculum.  I’m making an appeal to our state and local school systems to reinvigorate and reintroduce the study of civics and government in our classrooms.

What do you think? Am I looking at this like “Chicken Little?” Can you see such a scenario or something similar starting to develop?

A 1954 eighth grade civics test

It’s been a few weeks since Jesse Lichtenstein’s NYT Magazine article, “Digital Diplomacy” appeared.  The article introduces us to the US State Department’s Alec Ross and Jared Cohen.  What’s the angle? It’s about how two of Twitter’s most popular government “tweeters” (just behind President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain) are advancing U.S. diplomacy and public policy in the new world of social media and social networks, or “21^st century statecraft.”

You should definitely read the article.  It not only addresses the challenges (both the pitfalls and benefits) of using social media to share information and communicate to mass audiences; it also provides a glimpse into areas of government public policy making that is emerging with Web 2.0 and have not been addressed through practice or established guidelines.  The result: technology sometimes leads policy instead of responding to it.

Shaping policies to work with the technology and not to traditional (or at times legal) practices results in risks and benefits that are not always obvious or immediate.  By reshaping policies (or not adhering to them) because the technology affords us with the opportunity to do so can create an air of ambiguity and uncertainty, even the appearance of roguish behavior, though that is not what is necessarily intended. Policies can conflict between how it’s done online and how it’s done in the conventional or traditional sense.

Chains of command are stretched, even broken, and the span of control is sometimes out of control due to the ease of accessing hundreds of thousands of people; the ability to connect with them instantly; and, having both immediate and long term consequences due to the content of the message and formal position or informal influence held by the messenger.

What is the impact in the Internet age when the lines of traditional structures of communication, authority, or chain of command and policy making procedures become horizontal and non-sequential? And what is the impact from those people most versed in working around standard procedures are not necessarily those who know about or are experienced working with the standard procedures?

According to Cohen, “The 21^st century is a really terrible time to be a control freak.” Yet, as Lichtenstein points out, “control …is still a cherished tenet of foreign policy.”  And he quotes from a WSJ op-ed written by Evgeny Morozov, an academic at Georgetown University who writes “Diplomacy is, perhaps, one element of the U.S. government that should not be subject to the demands of ‘open government’.”  Might this also infer that diplomacy is better accomplished without transparency with only its results, not its inner workings, being open to the public?

Another question that can be asked is how much caution should be exercised when people such as Messrs. Cohen and Ross use these communication channels when communicating “off the clock” (even when they are on it) on matters unrelated to professional affairs?  Today, we can be “always on/always connected.” However, it doesn’t mean we’re always working –we do take off the tie.

Individuals in prominent positions, particularly in the public sector may want to make a judgment call when communicating non-business messages when they are in business mode. Some people don’t mind it. However, others may be confused or bothered by the personal “intrusion.”  Tweeting about the Secretary Clinton’s visit to Peru is quite different to tweeting about your favorite television program.  While most of us don’t think twice about separating our personal and professional messages, most of us don’t have a half-million people following us or reading them.  In the case of Cohen and Ross, Lichtenstein describes their postings as a hybrid “cross between social-networking culture and foreign-policy arcane.”

It is intriguing to watch this centuries old form of structured U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy be reinterpreted through advancing technology and by  younger generations who may care, but know little, or perhaps care little of how things used to be done. Respect for tradition is important when it comes to handling sensitive foreign policy matters.  But so is utilizing emerging technology and creating new communication channels to develop and deliver messages and policies.  Breaking new ground requires breaking with tradition and sometimes breaking rules.

Just think.  The iPhone is getting ready to release its fourth generation. Microsoft has launched its third Windows OS in five years, and we’re into a third tech-savvy US President, but Gov 2.0 is still Gov 2.0.

Having spent many years in this field called online government or e-government, particularly Gov 2.0, I’ve attended and participated in many  of its related events and have been an evangelist for this incredible transformation.  However, we continue to discuss this subject to the point that it’s become almost a chant; and I think there is a general wearing of patience and a leveling off of what I used to consider as a sense of urgency. Let’s face it: for a technology, we’ve been at this for a long time. 

Communication technology has the ability to change systems rapidly, sometimes regardless of the system’s culture.  Realistically, in this case, our system is not necessarily about culture, but about an institution.  It’s defined as a bureaucracy and one founded upon and administered by laws.  Incrementalism is the creeeping component that describes how this system advances. 

Still, there seems to be a consensus that the historical and traditional forms of communication and information sharing among governments and the public requires radical changes to meet the emerging needs and preferences of citizens and employees about how they want to collaborate.   And while we’ve been at this Gov 2.0 for some time now, no one has yet to come up with a new concept for us to warrant an upgrade version of e-government. 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m always ready, if not one of the first, to jump into a Gov 2.0 discussion.  And those who know me know I can bring a lot of passion to the table.  But we’ve been at a turning point for some time and for the folks who have been pushing and implementing Gov 2.0-type solutions in the public sector –those govies who are in the trenches, daily, slugging it out with unconvinced superiors, unaware IT folks and uninterested citizens– continue to persevere.  But they also continue to ask when are we going to turn that corner.

There are also the private sector technologists from Microsoft and IBM, to Telligent and YourMembership, to Drupal and Survey Monkey (and thousands of others) that work in concert with these government enablers.  But since we started down this long road, we are still missing four key elements that prevent us from reaching home. 

Three are technical, the other is human: Structure, Standards and Non-Proprietary.  Or, how does it operate? Does everyone’s work the same way? And can everyone adopt it and implement it regardless of the other systems they use or don’t?  After all, we’re talking technology solutions for democratic processes, not customer transactions.

The fourth element is human: citizens.  They have to be a part of the solution development.  Thus far, they are missing in action.  Or, they are on the receiving end of solutions that they were not a part of visioning or building but are expected to adopt. 

Gov 2.0 can be divided into two tracks: technology and citizen adoption.  I don’t believe you can advance Gov 2.0 without addressing both concurrently.

I’ve said this before:  If the citizen component is not part of the overall solution, then when all of this Gov 2.0 dust settles there will be a surplus of great technology tools and innovative processes but that no one outside of government will be using them.

“I don’t want to hear it!”  This is the command commonly used to keep from hearing a point of view different from our own.  Among the many enlightening presentations at the Personal Democracy Forum 2010, a/k/a PdF 2010, in New York this month, I found Eli Pariser’s talk on the “Bubble Filter” interesting and remindful.

The Bubble Filter is how search engines like Google and Facebook filter our searches to provide results that are based on our online viewing habits of web sites –that is, pulling results from sources we usually visit for information and communication.

Examples of Google search results were shown that used the same search words, but were initiated by different people.  While similar results were provided in both searches, there were also results that were mutually exclusive to the other viewer’s results. 

Eli’s point is that this does not help advance democratic processes.  When we seek out information on a topic or issue and receive results that may not contradict, but rather reinforce our current knowledge or bias we limit ourselves to different points of view. 

Eli questions that while we may like this personalized search version provided by Google or Facebook (even if unaware of the filtering) , he questions  what values are being embedded in these filters and by whom, e.g., Google uses 57 signals about you to personalize your search.

He argues that while giving people what they want may be good for the consumer, when it comes to serving a public’s need to learn about political or public policy issues or ideologies, “it doesn’t expose us to points of view that might challenge our thinking.”  I agree.

Another form of filtering has been going on since the birth of Web and is much more easier to control. But we don’t.  It’s personal filtering.

Each day, we intentionally filter our own viewing as we surf the web and avoid web sites that provide content that may challenge or dispute our perceptions.  We visit news media sites that are in line with our positions; view company sites whose products we like; and visit political or government sites whose political leanings are similar or the same as our own.

Legal scholar, professor and author, Cass Sunstein, in his 2007 book, Republic.com 2.0 coined the phrase as “The Daily Me.”  The Daily Me is how we avoid sites that are contrary to our views and opinions or visiting only those that support or reinforce already held beliefs.  The result is similar to what Google and Facebook are doing.  However, their filters are by design, ours are by intent.

Sunstein expands this concept to point out such filtering can not only lead to maintaining a closed mind, but also can entrench and elevate what may be moderate perceptions into developing a radically altered position.  He gives examples where persons whose viewpoints were moderate when they participated or interacted with others sharing similar views.  Whether that interaction was in a meeting, at a rally or in an online discussion or chat, those moderate perspectives became more ingrained.  In effect, dislike can become anger.  Anger can become extremism.

So if you join a group that’s talking about an issue, policy or piece of legislation that does not include different perspectives on that topic, the result from that interaction may be deeper entrenchment in the POV you had prior to that engagement.

While it is difficult to change personal habits to open the mind and the browser to read, talk about even tolerate different points of views from your own, it’s unforeseeable that we can actually bring reforms to Google and Facebook to open their search engines to broader perspectives and results on the topics we search on their sites. What do you think?

Ever hear the news anchor or a reporter state at the end of their story: “If you’d like to know more about (story subject), please visit our Web site.”?  While I can appreciate the need to attract eyes to their web site to help sell advertisers, these news outlets may be providing a disservice to their viewers; especially if they seek information on a story subject that’s aired earlier than what is currently being broadcast or reported.

What’s troubling me is the emerging practice (policy?) to intentionally not mention a web address or, sometimes, even the name of a program, agency or other identifier to ensure that people have to visit that news station’s web site.  While I have noticed this only a couple of times when it involved my organization, I plan to start viewing more attentively to see if this is becoming widespread.

When a story subject is about a social matter and/or a public policy issue, many times it’s to educate or inform of a possible situation or solution that helps citizens become more aware or helps them address a particular challenge they are dealing with personally or to someone they know.  If “yesterday’s news” is really yesterday’s news, then people who attempt to find out about a story may be unable to locate the “more on this” service the station is offering once they arrive on the web site.

 In the example that happened to us last week, an important story aired (you can view it on our homepage) about our organization’s program to help financially troubled families and individuals mediate their foreclosed homes in an effort to save and remain in them instead of losing them.  The program was continually referred to as “The Mediation Program.” Our organization’s name was never mentioned.  It only appeared once, in text, below our president’s name during his brief sound bite.  The web site was also absent in the report, both visually and verbally.  At the end, the reporter instructed viewers to visit their web site.  We all scratched our heads as the omissions were obvious.

After two days we went searching on their site to locate the information.  It took us four links from the homepage to find the text version (no video) of the story after obvious word searches.  No instructions appear on the homepage about how to find a news story. The only link to obtain information on the program was a link to our homepage from our organization’s name that appeared after our president’s quote.

I’m not going to jump to a conclusion here. WTVJ is an award-winning NBC affiliate in Miami with a seasoned, professional team. But I will make an observation. As public and private organizations adopt Internet strategies to engage their audiences and promote their online presence, some of these strategies will backfire.  While I appreciate the publicity and media coverage for our organization, in this case, it was more about an important community program and service and not about the organization. 

If strategies and policies to provide a community service via the Web only focus on attracting visitors to their site, news organizations are missing a huge opportunity to build an even stronger connection to and relationship with the audiences who show loyalty to the station and help them pay the bills off line so they can be online as well.

How about it? Anyone witness or experience something like this? How about those in the business of news.  I welcome to hear a different point of view or another idea on this?  Let me know.

In “Twilight at Monticello,” author Alan Pell Crawford recounts Thomas Jefferson’s fear that “America was fast becoming a republic in name only, where power may have been derived from the people, but where they possessed it ‘only on the days of their elections.’ After this it is the property of their rulers.”

President Obama’s first State of the Union address is history.  However, the many initiatives he outlined are all about the Union’s future: health care, security, the economy, jobs and unemployment, and education to name a few.  While one not-so-obvious challenge will be to find ways to fund their solutions, another and more disconcerting challenge is whether Congress can put forth a concerted and cooperative effort from its two major parties to advance these concepts into public policies. 

Unfortunately, this second challenge is real and will not only test the mettle of our federally elected officials but also the very fabric of our democratic process.  Will members of Congress face up to their responsibilities as representatives of the electorate to do what is right?  To do so, means finding common ground through compromise in order to build a consensus or bi-partisan majority.  Or will they delay action or even ignore their responsibility and instead pursue a path of party power over public policy?

Democrats want to maintain their advantage in both chambers; even secure a filibuster-proof majority that enables them to advance their party’s agenda regardless of the opposition.  Republicans seek to diminish the Democrat’s power, even hoping to overturn it and become the party of power.  Either of the GOP’s goals is achievable through the upcoming midterm elections.  The GOP’s hopes have been elevated with the recent election of Scott Brown, as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ new Senator.

How can one member of Congress –one percent of the total– affect the balance of power and public policy for millions of Americans?  When political parties, and their elected officials are focused more on might instead of right. 

With the voters of Massachusetts changing their Senate seat from one party to the other, they showed us (and to the GOP) something about the American public in general: voters are heavily influenced by and fixated on current events and generally cast their vote based on a short attention span.  This special election was more about voting on the moment than on historical achievements, tradition or on potential long term benefits.

This election, along with the current state of the economy, continued job losses, an ongoing war and congressional gridlock (issues argued ad nauseam that they all existed prior to the Obama Administration taking office) provide more fuel for the Republicans to believe they could upend the Democrats’ hold on Congress.  And by sticking along party lines which may mean doing nothing to advance the Administration’s planned federal policies, the GOP may have found an effective strategy to achieve more power, and arguably at the expense of the American public.

Even President Obama recognized the challenge posed by this current state of political struggle.  During his YouTube Interview on Monday in response to a citizen’s question on health care reform, the president cited the election of Scott Brown and responded that “…the way the rules work, it takes 60 votes, and we only have 59…” 

In this case, the president is expecting the congressional vote to be exclusively along party lines.  If so, are we to understand not one person from either party will cross over party lines to support or oppose this historical and important legislation?

Based on events and actions (inactions?) it appears that the GOP and the DNC have drawn their battle lines and the war of “Might over Right” is in full swing. 

Now I am not so naïve –and neither are most Americans– to not to expect that the goal of the minority party is be the majority party and the goal of the majority party is to retain its position.  But these are not “business as usual” times in our nation. 

When far reaching, reform policies are needed to restart, reduce, and reallocate, there has to be bipartisan agreement for those policies.  If not, the transformational changes usually needed in times of crises will be accomplished through partisan politics and by the party in power.  And when the inevitable changing of the guard occurs, those changes will be diminished or even reversed by their successors. 

This flaw of our democratic process is not the preference, nor is in the best interest of the American public or the nation.

Transparency, open government, e-government, Gov 2.0 are all terms to describe government’s new relationship with citizens in the age of the Internet, particularly using the social media technology solutions of Web 2.0.  Many believe in its promise to make government more approachable and more navigable via the Internet by improving access to the governance process and programs and services. 

One objective is to help citizens find information, a/k/a content, and be able to process it as they want or need.  Another purpose is to enable some form of structured electronic government-citizen and citizen-government dialog between the two parties.

However, a few years into this new form of online democracy, many obstacles and hurdles have been identified making it difficult for government and citizens to “find” each other, let alone interact.  Some of the causes are technical, while others are social. Hence, “new relationship” may not be the correct word.  Instead, this new association may look more like a “joint venture”; and that’s not necessarily a good thing.

While the technology has provided new forms of communication and information sharing —and arguably, in formats that meet citizens’ growing preferences and expectations for interaction— it has been slowed, detoured, ignored, even rejected in some cases.  This is primarily due to the historical, legal and political nature of the government-citizen relationship –a status quo existing in this nation since its beginning. 

These continued challenges are especially evident (and frustrating) when compared to the new technologies’ welcome adoption in the private sector for interaction between business and consumers, and in our personal lives among our friends and family.

Due to the tireless efforts of men and women in the public sector who mostly find they are paddling against the current, thousands of dedicated government employees believe they are doing the right thing to “open” as much of their content to the public as physically and legally possible.  So with this increasing gain of momentum, it’s worth pausing to take a read on the progress.  While it may be the right thing to do, are we moving in the right direction? That is, while all these “apps for democracy” are assumed to be a good thing, are they necessarily what are being sought after by the general public first or foremost from this new relationship structure? 

By bringing up the open data component of open government, let’s be mindful that government is neither a business nor a product. So while having the ability to interact with or manipulate its data (e.g., content) may advance thoughtful policy making, have we yet to decide on a strategy or effective structure to take care of the first order of business: engagement?  Or are we redirecting our energies to low hanging fruit because it’s there and we have some technology that lets us work with it?

You may not agree with me, but I have an idea that we have some restless natives out there who require attention.  When town hall meetings that are intended to be education forums for citizens to learn about and discuss health care reform (one of the most important public policy debates of our time)  turn into nothing but a physical shouting match; or when a Massachusetts senate race expected to be a shoe-in for the Democrat nominee results in a GOP victory (in Massachusetts!); and subsequently, when our elected leaders suggest the only way to ensure consensus is to have a filibuster-proof majority (what ever happened to compromise?), then its time to reevaluate the basic relationships that exist between government and its citizens and among the government leaders themselves. 

These relationships are strained, perhaps even rebellious. What marriage counselor wouldn’t love to get these two parties on her couch?  Government: “Not only does she (citizens) expect me to solve all her problems, she’s also lost all her trust in me.”  Citizens: “He (government) doesn’t do anything but sit around complaining about others; then when some stranger gives him special interest; he’s off to take care of their needs and ignores all of mine.”

Usually, the first recommendation to help mend the friction between the feuding parties is to find some common ground. You got it: communicate.  That’s talk it out, not “text it out”.  It’s the personal touch and approach that’s needed.  In this case, it’s more about schmoozing and showing an interest in others.  Politicians know this. Why do they forget or ignore it when they take office or become a public official?

So, when it comes to the use of technology in this equation, let’s set aside, for now, the use of technology as an end, and use it as a means to start improving the dialog and the relationship between citizens and government, and minimizing partisan politics in policy making.  For any relationship to be productive, the parties have to be able to get along, before they can expect to go along. Web 2.0 technologies should be focused to achieve that goal first.

There are some great “year-end” blog posts and articles reviewing e-Gov, or government via the Internet.  This year, it is mostly about Gov 2.0 — stories or benchmarks for expanding collaborative technologies of Web 2.0 across the public sector.   

Source: IBM

 All of these articles come from practitioners, intended for reading/discussion among other practitioners.  What’s missing? How about a citizen’s angle?  If John or Jane Q. Public were to create a “2009 Gov 2.0 List,” what would they include?

 Note: The following list is NOT intended as a criticism nor does it discount the innovative and brilliant efforts that have been made in local, state and federal government agencies by dedicated and hard working government employees (of which I was once a proud member) who are striving to improve government-citizen engagement.  Rather it is a list that addresses challenges that still exist and should be kept in mind of as we (all of us) continue to bridge the great chasm between government and the people it was formed to serve.

 Jane and John Q. Public’s “Year-End Gov 2.0 List”

 1. Where did my social network go?

 We were so inspired by the social networks created in 2008 by the major political candidates.  We joined many groups and collaborated with people across the country to learn about the issues while sharing our thoughts and ideas.  Then, our candidate was elected and our social network along with its extensive list of contacts no longer existed.  Even the ease to message with fellow group members and the candidate dissolved and we were left with only email or a long form to fill out to be able to communicate. What was once a thriving horizontal form of collaboration with my candidate and my fellow citizens has now become a vertical, mostly one-way form of communication with my elected official.  Why?

 2. Do you really mean “Contact me?”

 To our elected officials who have a “contact me” icon on your page, please know that we will actually click on it and go through the laborious process to complete your form in order to communicate with you.  So, instead of a pop up message that states you “get so much email from citizens” that you “only respond to (your) constituents” after we have taken 20-30 minutes to construct a thoughtful message to you, it would be better to know this up front before we dedicate that much time.  Also know that while we are not a direct constituent of yours, that you are a member of a committee that will influence or vote on a policy or rule that affects us, our families or our districts (even though you may not be our representative).

  3. How can you expect broad support from those of us without Broadband?

 For all the cool web sites and collaborative applications that tout online transparency, access, and participation, we can’t access them without a broadband connection and from what we understand, some 37% of the nation’s homes are in the same boat.  

  4. Our phone is a talking device – why doesn’t that work?

 We think all the mobile apps to connect with government to report issues and then even be notified that they are being addressed are cool and innovative.  But our phones aren’t “smart” and cannot connect to the web or house these applications.  However, it will let us place a call to someone and tell them the same thing.  Still, it appears the human voice (when it’s not on hold or going through a series of voice prompts) is less powerful than the key pad to connect to and receive a response from government when addressing communiqués received from citizens.

  5. Online democracy; but not really

 For those governing bodies that broadcast their public meetings, yet require the public to be there in order to participate, stop teasing us.  Electronically, you send a notice of the meeting and an agenda; even a link to a live stream of the event to watch it in real time.  But, for citizens who want to participate in the meeting by offering comment on an agenda item or another public issue, we are required to be there in person.  That means, having to get in our cars and drive to the actual venue; speak at the appointed time and for the specific time allotted.  We applaud the effort to replicate your public meeting online, just replicate all of it, including the part for the public to participate.

 6. We are “Generation Now (and forever)”

 Is there a realization in government like in the private sector that now and forever the public’s preference for communicating and sharing information has changed and that there are citizens of voting age who are also “cradle to grave” digital users?  And the appropriate response from government (considering they want to connect with us and engage us) should be to make it a high priority to restructure (not reinvent) its engagement processes based on these new preferences and expectations?

 7. We want to feel “special” too.

 Even if we had access to and expertise in all the cool Gov 2.0 solutions available and using the most cutting edge devices available, we still lack real interest in participating in our government and its policy making processes.  This feeling of apathy is due primarily to a belief that government has become more responsive and responsible to special interests groups than to individual citizens, and that we believe we cannot influence them even if we were to have access to them.  We think if this challenge is not part of the overall solution, then when all of this Gov 2.0 dust settles there will be a surplus of great technology tools and innovative processes available but that no one outside of government will be using them. 

 Check that.  Special interest reps will be using (and exploiting) them and the chasm created between government and its citizens over the last 50 years will be even wider with even less people having access to those individuals they elected.

Is the federal government up to the challenge of citizen engagement with the public on an individual basis?  Is it too much to expect an institution with an annual budget of three trillion dollars and as the nation’s largest employer with close to two million employees ready to go one-on-one with John or Jane Q. Public?  If so, are they equipped to do so, and do they really want to?

On a federal level, it may be asking too much to think open government and open governance can be synonymous.  What’s the difference between the two?  To write this post, I consider open government as the government establishing a reliable structure and a capability to provide access to information and communication in a standardize manner across the executive branch.  Open governance is the practice of facilitating individual and group dialog in collaborative exchanges that enables citizens to advance and initiate discussions as well as respond to questions and conversations originated by government.

In other words, open government is opening your home to the general public.  Open governance allows them to rearrange the furniture as they see fit. 

 We are sitting on the “Gov 2.0 Train” that has already left the station bound for who knows where.  There is a noted degree of sincerity by the men and women who work for the federal government who blog, tweet and speak about the need for open government.  On a daily basis, these employees put forth policies and efforts to advance this idea. 

 Yet, I am not convinced the executive and legislative branches really want to (or even can) have the level of exposure or accountability based on the definition of open governance described above or on the same level that state and particularly local governments have with their constituents. 

 As the evidence has yet to jell around capacity and desire, an argument can be made that there is a very big difference between open government and open governance.  This is a fair and timely statement considering the recent announcement of President Obama’s Open Government Initiative.

 Much credit is due this administration for its efforts to make government more open, inclusive and responsive to its citizens.  Since the beginning of the Obama Administration there has been a pledge for government transparency and open government.  The president’s first executive order focused on open government and this month, the Whitehouse launched the Open Government Initiative  “designed to hardwire accountability and accessibility into government institutions.”  It also published this month, a 28-page Report to the American People on the same topic.

 The contents of these documents support further discussion and inspection of the distinctions of the two concepts. Another important distinction to be made is that open government directives do not require what we have come to call Web 2.0 solutions to be successful.  However, open governance will require the collaborative technologies provided in Web 2.0 solutions to succeed.  Why?

 Open government has to do with the institution itself and its structure, or mechanics. Open governance has to do with its processes.  While the Internet has become the common denominator to both concepts, the Administration’s immediate goal is open government while citizens and stakeholders hope for open governance –and may be expecting they are one in the same. 

 The memorandum outlines three goals that have been incorporated into the strategies and execution: Transparency, Participation and Collaboration. President Obama believes government should be all three.

 He touches upon concepts of open government and open governance in his directive.  By using “should” or “will,” one can distinguish between what is open government and what is open governance.  Using “will” is in the directives the government can deliver.  The “should” directives will require a government that’s actively engaged with citizens and operating on a different level of collaboration, and using methods that have yet to be practiced across the agencies. 

 What I am hearing and reading in these communiqués is the Administration distinguishes between open government and open governance; and probably for valid reasons around capacity and desire.  If this is the case, we should not expect to have open governance until we reach the level of open government outlined in the president’s directive.

 Unfortunately, this will only continue the ongoing debate of transparency, participation and collaboration and what they look like online.  However, there have been a growing number of blog posts that Gov 2.0 train has been slowed or is stalled.  This perception (or reality) may be due, in part, to the seemingly repetitive and recycled discussions of Gov 2.0 as defined as Open Government, i.e., accomplishing the same agreed upon goal of organizing, providing and accessing content, just using different tools and technologies to achieve that result.

 Widespread, active public engagement is the Holy Grail of Open Governance.  But, we have to have public interest first, and that component can be advanced in the open governance design/build.  In a recent Twitter feed on this subject @DavidForbes posted a wise “tweet” saying, “…without tackling the cultural factors involved, will end up w/ same mess, just w/ fancier tools.”  I fully understand that assessment.

 We need to start or expand the discussions of Open Governance.  Not as Open Government Part II, but as a main component of the entire challenge and how that will be solved through open government.  That is where the public really gets engaged.  That is where the real value, or ROI, of online government and democracy will be realized.

Florida Justice Summit brings together traditional methods and new technology to create and build an online community

I had the pleasure to attend the first Florida Justice Summit on Monday/Tuesday (11/16-17) in Tampa.  The summit was hosted by the Collins Center for Public Policy.  The Collins Center is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that finds “smart solutions to important issues facing the people of Florida and the nation.”

This post is not necessarily about the topic of justice reform, but rather about how the Collins Center successfully converged conventional methods to connect, collaborate and build relationships with emerging communication technologies using the Internet and Web 2.0 solutions .  The result increased the reach and footprint of the conference and created a foundation from which to build a community around this important policy issue.

 The goal of the summit was to pull back the curtain and openly discuss the many challenges; minimize or remove existing agency “silos” that exist; and, motivate folks to become activists, especially those who can influence and make public policies.

 What I thought was most impressive at the summit was the Collins Center’s strategy to use the two day event as a kick start to facilitate an ongoing conversation and collaboration among the government agencies, businesses and the citizens of Florida using a traditional gathering with social media.  They were successful in pulling off a well-attended and publicized event while replicating that experience online where the summit will continue to “convene” and advance the dialog that began in Tampa.

Some examples about how they created a textbook case that can/should be replicated by other organizations included using their own web site, which is also a social network, along with other, free social networking sites and tools.

1. Live video streaming.  The Collins Center used USTREAM to broadcast the event and the many presentations.  In addition to using UStream, they embedded the live broadcast in their web site.  All the presentations will continue to be available for viewing. 
2. Twitter.  The Collins Center’s Twitter handle is @CollinsCenter.  They, along with others, tweeted throughout the conference and used the hashtag #smartjustice to organize an ongoing stream of tweets. 
3. Interactive Feedback.  At the summit, five “whiteboards” were set up listing a specific topic about justice reform.  Attendees were asked to write their ideas, suggestions and comments about those topics.  On their web site, the Collins Center created five public “forums” that replicated this exercise.  People attending could expand upon their comments and the forums are also available to anyone visiting their social network.  They will continue to be available for posting and discussion. 
4. Presentations.  Besides the presentations being streamed live and video-taped and posted on the Collins Web site, the Center has included the power point presentations to their Web site for viewing or downloading.  
5. Knowledge Building.  Having a distinguished number of high level public officials (appointed and elected) and business leaders in the same place and at the same time, the Collins Center conducted a number of professionally video taped interviews, as well as using on-the-fly handhelds, to tap their knowledge, perspectives and ideas and will add them to the Collins Web site, their Facebook page and to their YouTube account.
6.  Building a Community.  Because the Collins Center used their social networking solution to register people for the Justice Summit, they were able to easily capture contact information on hundreds of people interested in this topic thereby creating an “instant community” of members in which they plan to stay connected.

 What are the next steps now that the Justice Summit has adjourned?  The Collins Center plans to continue to facilitate the discussion around this important issue.  By making all of this content and interaction easily available while soliciting and adding more content and input from people, the Collins Center will provide the public with a transparent process that easily enables further discussion and education. 

While the attendees were of a high caliber, there are hundreds of other government agency directors and staff, business leaders, and elected officials who did not attend, but will probably hear about it directly or indirectly.  Thanks to the Collins Center, they will have a central location and data repository to visit online to watch, hear, view and even participate (through the forums, for example) in just about the same way as those who attended the summit.

 In closing, let me make just a comment or two about justice reform.  About 300 attendees from the public and private sector attended the Florida Justice Summit to discuss “smart justice reform,” to identify or amplify the issues and challenges facing the state and its citizens.  In Florida and in many other states the cost to taxpayers for justice administration is high and continues to climb without any real evidence of success.  For example, one dollar in 11 spent by the state goes to the criminal justice system and most of that goes to maintain prisons and inmates.

  It was obvious that the challenges are not just about public safety but about money –and that impacts everything.  In a time of state economic crises; when revenues are not there and you have, in many cases, early inmate release back into the community as a cost-saving measure (and let’s face it, 95% of people in jails and prisons will be released back into society), it is important now to develop meaningful treatment programs not lock-up programs.  It is not about being “soft” on crime, but being “smart” on crime, and the Collins Center and the people of Florida are showing a real interest to be just that.