No joke: Open data fuels transparency, civic utility and economic activity

Open data venn diagrram
Credit: "Open government data," by Justin Grimes

Is the open data movement a ‘joke‘?

Canadian blogger Tom Slee published a post yesterday that made that claim, writing that “it’s not a movement, at least in any reasonable political or cultural sense of the word” and that “it’s doing nothing for transparency and accountability in government. Slee followed by a second post that highlighted some reactions to the first —  including my own, driven by a rather heated dialogue on Twitter with author Evgeny Morozov.

Slee makes one assertion that will be of particular interest to Govfresh readers, who may be surprised to find that civic hacking and a movement to put open government data online don’t exist:

Who, after all, is the Open Data Movement? Well it turns out there isn’t one really, at least when it comes to “open data” in the sense of “open government data”, which along with “open scientific data” is one of the two most common uses of the term.

“Open Data Movement” is a phrase dragged out by media-oriented personalities to cloak a private-sector initiative in the mantle of progressive politics. Along with other cyberculture terms (“hacktivism”, “unconferences”, “hackathons”) the word “movement” suggests a countercultural grass-roots initiative for social change, but there isn’t anything of the sort that I can see.

After a weekend at Transparency Camp in DC where an international open government (counter) culture was everywhere and a trip to Brasilia to see  representatives from civil society meet at the Open Government Partnership conference, along with years of reporting, I can honestly say that Slee simply must not be looking very hard. Sunlight Labs director Tom Lee rung in this afternoon with his assessment, defending open data’s role in accountability and activism:

But in a larger sense, there can be no question that open data is an important tool for creating accountability. Consider what FOIA means for corruption. Consider what OpenCorporates is doing. Consider our work on lobbying reform or tax expenditure transparency or the understanding of the interplay between the two that open data makes possible. Or look at Revenue Watch’s work to get better data on international royalty payments from mineral and petroleum companies. Or our push for better information about Congressional activity and political advertising.

Slee’s notion that open data is simply obfuscation for private sector initiatives was also more or less turned on its ear by TechPresident’s summary of Transparency Camp:

….an international group of transparency and open government activists got together for TransparencyCamp. Among the folks represented there: Open Data Albania, a collaborative that collects and analyzes data about the government of Albania and partners with journalists to build context to explain how that country works; Global Integrity, which partnered with others to build a 50-state corruption report card for the United States; and LittleSis, which looks to map connections and influence at the highest levels of American society.

Are there commercial interests that will use open data in their products or services? Absolutely. Look to consumer finance startups like Hello Wallet or BrightScope or Mint.com or bigger players in healthcare, like Aetna, that stand to benefit from smart disclosure initiatives.

There’s little doubt that smart entrepreneurs, big and small, are going to mashup data from the rapidly expanding new sources — social data, geolocation data, mobile data, financial data, transit data, health data, etc — and build new businesses on it or improve their existing services, like Zillow or Google Maps or Consumer Reports or Bloomberg Government. In a time when job creation is critical, using public sector information to create jobs isn’t an aim to dismiss lightly, although the terms and conditions under which such activity occurs must be clear to all actors involved, to avoid the creation of new monopolies based upon artificial scarcity.

We are in such early days in this new century, and the role of civic entrepreneurs in putting data to work in the marketplace shouldn’t be discounted or dismissed out of hand, although the licensing and extraction of value of public data must be closely watched. (And yes, that includes the progress of civic startups coming out of Code for America’s civic accelerator or any funded by O’Reilly’s Alpha Tech ventures, like SeeClickFix. If you see the latter in my coverage, expect a disclosure and know I personally do not have an interest in the success of such startups and maintain a rigorous “church and state” relationship with that entity. My investments currently consist of a 401(k), and not one that’s weathered the economic downturn as well as I’d like.)

Here’s the Sunlight Foundation’s Tom Lee again, on the issue that Slee raised:

… the core of Tom’s complaint isn’t about episodic failures of activism. Rather, he seems to be bothered by open data enthusiasts’ adoption of language and an aesthetic that traditionally belong to projects with more expressly political (and progressive) aims. He seems suspicious that a self-described nonpartisan activist movement could be anything but a cynical lobbying ploy for private interests. Indeed, there’s a clear strain of hostility toward business that runs through Tom’s critique. Fair enough: more than a few such “movements” have turned out to be astroturfing operations, and it’s certainly true that on some open data issues I expect a less than enthusiastic response from the corporate world.

But I think it’s flatly wrong to consider private actors’ interest in public data to be uniformly problematic. We should be clear: we won’t tolerate those interests’ occasional attempts to lock public data into exclusive monopolies. I think our community has done a pretty good job lately of identifying such situations and stopping them, and of course people like Carl Malamud have been doing important work on this question since well before most of us ever heard of “open data.” But if commercial activity is enabled by data, that’s all to the good—the great thing about digital information is that scarcity doesn’t have to be a concern. Google Maps’ uses of Census TIGER data, for instance, is proprietary, motivated by profit, and unquestionably a huge boon to human welfare. And the source data remains free for anyone else to use! Cutting off those kinds of uses with noncommercial licensing would be nothing more than a destructive act of pique.

Open government godfather Carl Malamud offered a blunter assessment in a comment:

…In my world, the commercial sector is raping and pillaging the public treasury, getting exclusive deals on data that not only keeps out other companies, but researchers, public interest groups, and everybody else who make up “the public.” In many cases, the government data is so tightly behind a cash register that even government workers enforcing the law can’t afford to buy copies of the data they produce or the rules they promulgated.

I have no idea who Whimsley is and don’t usually bother to comment on random blogs by armchair quarterbacks, and I have no idea what is going on in Canada, but this one seems so far off the mark it seemed worth a few words. The post is backwards in the analysis, but it is also lacking a bit of reality.

I don’t give a hoot if something is a movement, but I’m not sure that making lists of who gets to use data and who doesn’t get to use public data makes any sense (many nonprofits are intensely commercial and many commercial operations seem to avoid the evilness of many of the beltway bandits). As far as Code for America’s program and their sponsors, or Tim O’Reilly and his talks, I’ve observed all of those at first hand and it is pretty clear the pseudonymous blogger doesn’t have a clue what either group does or what they think.

Carl

P.S. I’ve watched many tens of millions of people access and use government data that wasn’t available before from my servers. Maybe not a movement, but definitely a really big crowd.

Canadian open government data advocate and analyst David Eaves responded to Slee today on his own blog, where he argues (at considerable length) that open data movement is not a joke. The whole post is worth reading but I’ll quite Eaves on one point in particular:

…to be clear, I would never equate open government data as being tantamount to solving the problems of a restrictive or closed government (and have argued as much here). Just as an authoritarian regime can run on open-source software, so too might it engage in open data. Open data is not the solution for Open Government (I don’t believe there is a single solution, or that Open Government is an achievable state of being – just a goal to pursue consistently), and I don’t believe anyone has made the case that it is. I know I haven’t. But I do believe open data can help. Like many others, I believe access to government information can lead to better informed public policy debates and hopefully some improved services for citizens (such as access to transit information). I’m not deluded into thinking that open data is going to provide a steady stream of obvious “gotcha moments” where government malfeasance is discovered, but I am hopeful that government data can arm citizens with information that the government is using to inform its decisions so that they can better challenge, and ultimately help hold accountable, said government.

Expect more reactions to emerge. For my part, I’d reiterate what I’ve written about open government data before: Simply opening up data is not a replacement for a Constitution that enforces a rule of law, free and fair elections, an effective judiciary, decent schools, basic regulatory bodies or civil society, particularly if the data does not relate to meaningful aspects of society.

I’ll go a bit further, extending a comment I left on Slee’s second post. Morozov’s points about raising critical questions are legitimate and my comments on Twitter could easily be read as being dismissive of their pertinence. That was not my goal and to do so would be antithetical to my belief in free speech and robust public discourse about the serious issues that confront us as a country and humans on this small blue dot.

I did think — and still do — that the latter half of Slee’s post needed to include some basic research that would have improved its discussion of the issues involved, particularly with respect to the tension between open data and open government. The comments he received on that post particularly those of Carl Malamud, as quoted above, and the posts that I’ve linked, should serve as a bellwhether.

Readers curious about the tensions here (perhaps including Slee) would benefit from reading a recent research paper by Yu and Robinson on the ambiguity of open government and open data and from delving into the broader discussion in civil society in South America and Europe in the lead up to the Open Government Partnership, where this dynamic was the subject of much concern — and not just in a Canadian or UK context.

One reason that Slee’s post may have received attention — and continues to do so — is that it does not read as “The problem with open data versus open government in Canada.” Instead, it’s an indictment of what’s happening in the U.S. or around the world. I suspect that if he had stopped after the first half of what he’d written about Canada’s open government record, most people from civil society and NGOs would have nodded along. One reason those legitimate concerns he raised may not be receiving the attention that Slee might like is that they were coupled them with a headline and analysis that distract from them. In his followup, he walks that back a bit, but not much.

As the conversation in the public sphere over the past few years has demonstrated, there are a lot of different perspectives on what purposes “open data” should serve, often informed by what the watcher intends or the organization’s goals. That’s to be expected in a new and rapidly evolving space.

There are people who want to see legislatures open their data, to provide more insight into deliberative processes. In the U.S., for instance, Govtrack.us has been making government legislative data open (and more useful!) by scraping it from government websites.

There are constituencies who wish to see campaign finance data open, like the Sunlight Foundation, thereby showing where influence and power lies in the political system.

There are entrepreneurs and civic activists who wish to see transit data or health data become more open, in the service of more civic utility or patient empowerment — one can look at the efforts of various cities or the Veterans Administration in the US on that count. When you consider that such data can include ratings or malpractice information about hospitals or doctors, or fees for insurance companies, transparency and accountability does crop up as a goal, which in turn does have political implications.

One could spend quite a bit of time listing organizations or individuals who are putting data online, including open government activists in Brazil, Africa or yes, Canada, and then listing consumers of that data.

Whether Slee wish to describe those activities as a “movement” is up to him — but it is indisputable that 3 years ago, a researchers would be hard-pressed to find a open government data platform nor downstream consumers.

Now there are dozens of such platforms at the national, state and city level and even more services that use that data. What matters more than their existence, however, is what goes onto them. In that respect, civil society and media must to be extremely careful about giving governments credit for just putting a “portal” online. In March, Sunlight Foundation policy director John Wonderlich wrote a post about the “missing open data policy” that every government standing up a platform could benefit from reading:

Most newly implemented open data policies, much like the Open Government Directive, are announced along alongside a package of newly released datasets, and often new data portals, like Data.gov. In a sense, these pieces have become the standard parts of the government data transparency structure.  There’s a policy that says data should generally be open and usefully released, a central site for accessing it, some set of new data, and perhaps a few apps that demonstrate the data’s value.

Unfortunately, this is not the anatomy of an open government.  Instead, this is the anatomy of the popular open government data initiatives that are currently in favor. Governments have learned to say that data will be open, provide a place to find it, release some selected datasets, and point to its reuse.

What gets left out of these initiatives, however, is often the most important part — the decisions as to what gets released, and how.  Many open government data discussions skip over the question of whether governments are deciding appropriately what gets released and what doesn’t.  Instead of making complex decisions about what should be released, central governments suggest that those decisions are hard, and that as long as there’s always some new information, then we’re making progress that deserves praise.

There are also, notably, many civil society and media organizations that are collecting and sharing open data, from OpenCorporates to OpenCongress to ProPublica, and startups as well, like Brightscope.

There are a lot of different voices in this space. Asking hard questions is important and useful, particularly given that motivations and context will differ from country to country and from industry to civil society. In the United States, there is a sizable group of people that believe that data created using public funds should in turn be made available to the public — and that the Internet is a highly effective place to make such data available. (See the Sunlight Foundation’s support for POIA, or “Public = Online.”) Such thinking extends to research or code now too. Support for open data also extends across the political spectrum here, as evidenced by the recent passage of the DATA Act with bipartisan support.

Whether one agrees with that perspective or not is, of course, something that free thinkers in democratic societies to decide for themselves, including my neighbors in Canada. Given the pervasive tendency towards more secrecy in governments, not less, and my experience in open government over the past few years, my tendency is towards making public information open by public by default as opposed to its inverse. If the trend towards over-classification is not reversed, the nation will be less informed.

Finally, since Slee brought the source of his frustration up in his second post, I want to be clear: the issues he cited with respect to Canada’s open government record are not founded in speculation, as his links and points demonstrate. The Harper administration has received the dubious distinction of a secrecy award from a journalism association. It did cancel Canada’s long-form census, prompting the resignation of the head of the Statscan service. And journalists have been confronted with limited access to government scientists, much in the same vein of open government issues in the United States.

Highlighting the difference between rhetoric and actions is a crucial role for civil society and independent media in any open government context. To the extent Slee has done so with these posts, I applaud his actions. To the extent he questions my motivations or those of my publisher and friend, Tim O’Reilly, I reject his conclusions.

I agreed to collaborate with Tim on focusing attention on open government and technology because he wanted to see government work better, become smarter, and be more accountable to the people whom it serves. I did so with the understanding that I’d be able to pursue storytelling with editorial independence and adherence to truth, fairness, accuracy and reason. If I ever fail in that goal, I expect the open government community to continue to hold me as accountable as they would an elected official or public servant.

Should Canada’s open government advisory panel be convened again, I will have specific issues to raise concerns about with the other members and commit to doing so.

Eight open government recommendations for Canada

Earlier this year, I accepted an invitation from Canadian Minister of Parliament Tony Clement, the president of Canada’s Treasury Board, to be a member of Canada’s advisory panel on open government, joining others from Canada’s tech industry, the academy and civil society. The first — and only — meeting to date was held via telepresence on February 28th, 2012.

I chose to accept the invitation to sit on this panel — in an unpaid, nonbinding and entirely voluntary role — because I viewed it in the same vein as my participation in the open consultation on the U.S. National Plan for Open Government that the White House held prior to the launch of the Open Government Partnership last year. I viewed it as an opportunity to represent a perspective at the (virtual) table that valued the role of journalism and civil society. I disclosed my involvement on the panel using the Internet, including Twitter, Facebook and Google+.

Here are the recommendations I made when I had an opportunity to speak:

1) Cooperation or partnerships with media for publishing and improving open government data. The Guardian’s datablog is top-notch in covering the United Kingdom efforts. This could include the ability to bring “cleaned” data back into a media platform. This should never preclude investigative work in the service of government accountability in the use of that data nor any restrictions regarding journalistic work.

2) A mobile strategy to involve citizens in governance, particularly remote towns, an issue in the immense country of Canada. Government should not neglect mobile websites, email and txt in favor of “Web 2.0” services.

3) An “analog” strategy, to ensure all citizens offline are included in any open government process, whether it involves a consultation, election, budgetary guidance, including the use of phones and town halls.

4) A demand-sensitive approach to freedom of information requests. Media and open government advocates should be further empowered to get more access to crucial “good government” records and to ask direct questions of public officials. Dataset releases should be prioritized by both the public interest and in the public interest.

5) A focus on releasing raw government performance data about government services and about regulated industries, as means of driving transparency into industries and government, providing material for both government and corporate watchdogs to hold institutions more accountable. Joining the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, as the United States has done, would be a substantive example of such a move.

6) A national citizen scanning initiative, akin to Carl Malamud’s “Yes We Scan” notion, to digitize government information.

7) A focus on meaningful engagement on social media platforms, not simply broadcasting political agendas, with incentives to listen to the concerns of constituents, not increase the volume of outbound communication.

8 ) Measure open data outcomes, not volume: I suggested later in the meeting that measuring the impact of open data should not come from the number of data sets published nor the number of apps on the minister’s iPhone. The success of the effort would be judged upon A) improvements to internal efficiency or productivity, B) downstream use of data, not total datasets published C) the number of applications that are actively used by citizens, whether in the service of driving greater accountability or civic utility.

A note on disclosure

Questions have been raised by author Evgeny Morozov about whether I should be on this panel or not, given that I write about open government. (He indicated on Twitter that he thinks that I should not be.) I asked several professors and editors prior to accepting the offer if they saw an issue with joining, prior to accepting the offer. All replied I could do so if I was open about my involvement and disclosed it. The Canadian government itself subsequently made that disclosure, along with my social publications on February 28th. I have been waiting for them to publish a more detailed, full record of the open government panel discussion, to no avail. (The above recommendations constitute publication of my notes made prior and during to the meeting but should not be viewed a transcript. An extremeley general, high level summary can be found at open.gc.ca.)

To date, in that context, my sole involvement has been to give feedback on Canada’s open government plan, listed above, over a teleconference screen. I have also talked with David Eaves, who also sits on the advisory panel (see his post on his involvement for more information).

When I was in Brazil last month for the Open Government Partnership conference, I did attend a dinner at the Canadian embassy that included Clement and the Canadian delegation, along with Eaves. While I was there, I talked with Canada’s deputy CIO about how I personally used social media and derived value from it, along with how I had observed large institutions accumulate and retrieve knowledge internally using collaboration software. I also talked with attendees about hockey, Brazil, dinner itself, and Eaves’ experience being a father of a newborn baby. I do not know if open government or open data were the subject of subsequent conversation with the Clement, ambassador or their staff: I left after dessert.

If you have strong opinions about my involvement, as described above or elsewhere, please ring in in the comments or contact me directly at alex@oreilly.com.

Rufus Pollock on open data, civil society and the Open Government Partnership

Rufus Pollock, co-founder of the Open Knowledge Foundation, was interviewed at the Open Government Partnership conference (OGP) in Brasilia, Brazil in April 2012.

In the video embedded above, Pollock talks about his involvement with OGP and how civil society will be involved in holding government accountable. He also explains what open data means to him, including a definition and how it relates to traditional open government goals of transparency and accountability. Pollock recommends the Open Data Handbook as a resource to learn more and put data to work in the service of better government.

Philadelphia shows brotherly love to open data with new executive order

As TechnicallyPhilly reported this morning, the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has joined the ranks of municipalities putting more public data onto the Internet.

“Transparency is a cornerstone of good governance, and it is vital for the City to be open and available to our citizens,” said Mayor Michael Nutter in a statement posted to the city of Philadelphia’s Facebook page. “Philadelphia was recently named at the seventh most social media savvy city in the nation. The Open Data policy furthers many of the policies and initiatives already put in place by the City.”

Bill Signing_MLeff_08

“The Open Data Policy puts in place the necessary framework, structure and governance that will increase collaboration among City departments and bring citizens closer to their government,” said Chief Innovation Officer Adel Ebeid. “This policy is the first installment in Mayor Nutter’s vision for Philadelphia to become a model for increasing transparency and removing barriers to information sharing and collaboration.”

As NBC Philadelphia reported, the executive order also establishes an internal social media policy for Philadelphia municipal government.

The city now has 90 days to select or hire a chief data officer (a position that Logan Clier called for all cities to establish on the Code for America blog earlier today) and 120 days to establish a “data governance advisory” board, both of which will be in entrusted with established standards and means of publishing open data, along with periodically evaluating the releases to date.

Philadelphia may soon have an opportunity to compare notes with other cities that have pursued open data platforms around the United States, including San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Boston and New York City. NYC has set up a wiki to help implement its landmark open data legislation, an example that Philadelphians might draw inspiration from, with respect to forming more collaborative and transparent processes online.

There’s much to like in this executive order, for open data advocates, but one phrase in particular jumps out: “Each City department and agency shall develop a schedule for making information available to the public and updating it on a regular basis.”

This could go a long way to addressing key concern that has been extant in other cities and states, where data sets go online but are not subsequently updated. That will only be true, however, if political will is coupled with policy clout to drive more release and public engagement with media, academy and Philadelphia’s technical community to put the data to work for the public’s good.

The good news on that count is that Philadelphia has a partner in Technically Philly, which has been an active participant in driving this change:

The Executive Order had been long rumored and follows the more than year-long growth of a public-private coalitionpushing for a clearer strategy on using data to make government more transparent and efficient.

Full disclosure: Technically Philly has been involved in these conversations, though purely to make clear the editorial objectives of this technology news site. Last fall, during and after the OpenDataRace, a project that sought public voting on desired city data, representatives of Technically Philly, GIS firm Azavea, which built OpenDataPhilly.org, and the William Penn Foundation met with new city CIO Adel Ebeid to discuss the effort on multiple occasions, sometimes with other city IT staff.

As with every open data effort, the devil will be in the details. Or, to put it another way, the devil will be in the datasets, including the quality and relevance of what’s posted. That said, it’s impossible to see today’s action as anything other than a watershed for the city that I grew up in, from 1984 to 1994, and I can’t help but hope that everyone in the City of Brotherly Love collaborates in making the most of the opportunity that now lies before Philadelphia to apply data for the public good.

Go make stuff that matters.


As of 7:43 PM ET this evening, the city had not yet posted the executive order to Phila.gov, the city’s official website. I’ve published the EO on open data and government transparency in full below.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. __ -12

OPEN DATA AND GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY

WHEREAS, the City of Philadelphia is committed to creating a high level of openness and transparency in government; and

WHEREAS, the three principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration form the cornerstone of an open government; and

WHEREAS, the City’s participation as a founding and vital partner in the open data consortium has provided a model for transparency on which the City should continue to build; and

WHEREAS, more City data sets should be published and made available via an Open Data Portal which will provide access to information and a mechanism for public feedback and participation; and

WHEREAS, the demands of an across-the-board open government framework require the dedication of a new position, of Chief Data Officer, to direct these initiatives; and

WHEREAS, social media tools have become a part of everyday life for City employees and City residents, such that social media can be a means of increasing government transparency and civic engagement; and

WHEREAS, timetables should be established for development and implementation of an overall Open Government Plan to enhance and develop transparency, public participation, and collaboration in all City activities;

NOW THEREFORE, I, Michael A. Nutter, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia, by the authority vested in me by the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, do hereby order as follows:

SECTION 1. OPEN DATA WORKING GROUP AND CHIEF DATA OFFICER

A. As soon as practicable, the Mayor and the Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) will establish an Open Data Working Group to focus on transparency, accountability, participation, and collaboration within City government. The Working Group, which will include senior level representation from program and management offices throughout the City, will assist the CIO in selecting a Chief Data Officer. The Working Group will also provide a forum to develop innovative ideas for promoting open government goals, including collaborations with researchers, the private sector, and the public, and for developing resolutions to issues raised through the public feedback mechanisms of the Open Government Portal.

B. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Order, the CIO, with assistance from the Open Data Working Group, shall hire or designate an individual to serve as Chief Data Officer (CDO). The CDO will lead the Open Data and Transparency initiatives outlined in this Order, including working with City departments and agencies to establish standards for publication of data and the most effective means for making such data available. The CDO will report to the Chief Innovation Officer.

SECTION 2. DATA GOVERNANCE ADVISORY BOARD

Within 120 days from the Effective Date of this Order, the Mayor shall appoint a Data Governance Advisory Board. The Board shall consist of nine members, including the Chief Innovation Officer and the CDO, and shall be chaired by an individual designated by the Mayor. The Open Data Working Group shall solicit nominations for members of the Advisory Board, and shall recommend appointments from the public, private, academic and nonprofit sectors. The Advisory Board shall meet regularly at such times as the Board decides, and its members shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor.

SECTION 3. OPEN GOVERNMENT PLAN

A. Development of Plan. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Order, the CIO and the CDO, in conjunction with the Advisory Board, shall develop and publish an Open Government Plan. The plan will detail, including specific actions and timelines, the steps that the City will take to incorporate the principles of open government into its daily activities.

B. The Plan shall be formulated with the input of senior policy, legal, and technology leadership in the City; open government experts; and the general public.

C. Components of the Plan shall include:

(1) Transparency: Steps the City will take to conduct its work more openly and publish its information online, including ready public access to ordinances and regulations, policies, legislative records, budget information, crime statistics, public health statistics, and other information. Where possible, publication shall be in an open format, subject to privacy, confidentiality, and security concerns, and to the City’s Social Media Use Policy. Additionally, the Plan will identify high value data sets not yet available to the public, and establish a reasonable timeline for their publication online in open formats.

(2) Public Participation: Description of how the City will enhance and expand opportunities for the public to participate throughout each City agency’s decision-making process, including instructions for online access to published information and opportunities for comment; methods for identifying stakeholders and other affected parties and encouraging their participation; links to appropriate websites where the public can engage in the City’s existing participatory processes; and proposed changes to internal management and administrative policies to increase public participation.

(3) Collaboration: Steps the City will take to enhance and expand cooperation among City departments and agencies, other governmental agencies, private and nonprofit entities, and the public, to fulfill City goals and obligations; including proposals to use technology platforms and links to appropriate websites to improve, and inform the public about, existing collaboration efforts, and use of innovative methods to obtain ideas from and to increase collaboration with those in the private sector, nonprofit and academic communities.

SECTION 4. OPEN DATA POLICY

A. Open Government Portal. Within 90 days of the Chief Data Officer’s assumption of responsibilities, the Office of Innovation and Technology shall establish a Portal that will serve as the source for Citywide and departmental activities with respect to this open government initiative. The Chief Innovation Officer, in his discretion, may build on previous open data initiatives, or may establish a new portal.

B. Identification of Barriers, Guidance and Revisions. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Order, the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Chief Innovation Officer, shall review existing city policies to identify impediments to open government and to the use of new technologies and, where necessary, issue clarifying guidance or propose revisions to such policies, where greater openness can be promoted without damage to the City’s legal and financial interests.

C. Department and Agency Open Formats. Each City department and agency shall develop a schedule for making information available to the public and updating it on a regular basis. To the extent practicable and subject to valid restrictions, agencies shall publish information on line (in addition to other planned or mandated publication methods), and in an open format. The open format will provide data in a form that can be retrieved, downloaded, indexed, searched and reused by commonly used web search applications and software. Such information shall, subject to legal and practical restrictions and to the City’s Social Media Use Policy, be made available to the public without restrictions that would impede re-use of the information.

D. Open Data Catalog. Within 90 days of the CDO’s assumption of duties, each City department and agency shall create a catalog of its public information. The catalog shall be made accessible through the Open Government Portal. The determination of what shall constitute “public information” and “high value data sets” for purposes of this Order, as well as what “high value data sets” should be shared as set forth in paragraph 4.E hereof, shall be made by each department or agency head in consultation with OIT and the Law Department.

E. High Value Data Sets. Within 120 days of the CDO’s assumption of duties, each Deputy Mayor shall identify and publish online, in an open format, at least three high-value data sets, not currently available on line or not available in a downloadable format.

F. Public Feedback. The Open Government Portal shall include a mechanism for the public to give feedback on and assess the quality of published information, provide input about what information should be a priority for publication, and provide input on the City’s Open Government Plan.

G. Legally Protected Information. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to supersede existing requirements for review and clearance of information exempt from disclosure under the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act and other applicable laws, regulations, or judicial orders.

H. Evaluation. The City’s progress toward meeting the open government goals set forth in this Order shall be evaluated six months from the Effective Date of this Order, again one year from the Effective Date, and annually thereafter. The evaluation shall be released on the Open Government Portal, and shall include criteria to be developed by the Advisory Board.

SECTION 5. SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY

A. The City of Philadelphia’s Social Media Use Policy is, by this Order, simultaneously adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if fully stated.

B. Going forward, the Mayor’s Director of Communications and Strategic Partnerships and the CIO, or their designees, shall consider any additional issues that arise concerning standards for the acceptable use of social media by City employees, as well as by members of the general public who comment on or otherwise interact with the City through its social media websites, and shall, with the review and approval of the Law Department, make such amendments as may be advisable to the Social Media Use Policy.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Order shall be effective immediately.

Date: ___________________ ____________________________
MICHAEL A. NUTTER, MAYOR

2012 Gov 2.0, Open Government and Open Data Events Calendar

Since I heard that last year’s Gov 2.0 and Open Government Events Calendar was useful to the broader community, here’s this year’s version. There will be many other places around the globe for people to gather, talk and learn about Gov 2.0 in 2012 — just take a look through the many Govloop event listings. There will be any number of citizen-generated unconferences and hackathons, where the attendees generate the program. They’ll include CityCamps, BarCamps, PodCamps or MobileCamps. Check out the CityCamp calendar to find one near you and keep an eye out for CityCamp meetups in February.

The following listings are by no means comprehensive but should serve as a starting point if you’re wondering what’s happening, when and where. If you know about more Gov 2.0 events that should be listed here, please let me know at alex@oreilly.com or @digiphile.

Special note of thanks to the Intellitics 2012 conference radar and Gov 2.0 Radio calendar feed, which are both excellent resources.

Annual Open Government Partnership Meeting

April 17-18
Brasilia, Brazil
Website: http://www.opengovpartnership.org

Gov 2.0 LA

April 21
Los Angeles, CA
Website: http://www.gov20la.com

International Conference on e-Democracy, e-Government and e-Society

April 25–27, 2012
Venice, Italy
Website: http://www.waset.org/conferences/2012/italy/icdgs/

Transparency Camp 2012

April 28–29, 2012
Greater Washington DC area
Website: http://transparencycamp.org

4th ICTs and Society-Conference 2012

May 2–4, 2012
Uppsala, Sweden
Website: http://www.icts-and-society.net/events/uppsala2012/

International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 2012 (CeDEM ’12)

May 3–4, 2012
Krems (Austria)

Open Gov West 2012 (OGW2012)

May 2012
Location TBD
Website: http://www.opengovwest.org

Digital Governance in Latin America, LASA 2012 XXX International Congress

May 23–26, 2012
San Francisco, CA
Details: http://www.certop.fr/DEL/spip.php?article2465

e-participation: International conference on youth participation in the digital society

June 4–5
2012 Berlin (Germany)
Registration: http://www.amiando.com/eParticipationYouth.html

2012 Digital Government Society Conference (dg.o 2012)

June 4–7
University of Maryland
College Park, MD

2012 American Democracy Project and The Democracy Commitment Annual Meeting

June 7–9
San Antonio, TX
Website: http://aascu.org/Meetings/adp12/

University Network for Collaborative Governance 2012 Annual Meeting

June 10–12
Syracuse, NY
Website: http://www.policyconsensus.org/events/uncg_2012.html


Personal Democracy Forum

June 11–12
New York, NY
Website: http://personaldemocracy.com

12th European Conference on eGovernment (ECEG 2012)

June 14–15
Barcelona (Spain)

25th Bled eConference

June 17–20, 2012
Bled (Slovenia)
Website: http://www.bledconference.org


International Open Government Data Conference

July 10-12
World Bank, DC
Website: http://www.data.gov/communities/conference

The Democracy Imperative (TDI) National Conference

July 18–21, 2012
Boston, MA
Website: http://unh.edu/democracy/

Frontiers of Democracy

July 19–21
Boston, MA
Website: http://activecitizen.tufts.edu/?pid=1096

IADIS International Conference: e-Democracy, Equity and Social Justice

July 21–23
Lisbon, Portugal
Website: http://www.edemocracy-conf.org

International Conference on Electronic Democracy

September 3–7
Vienna, Austria
Website: http://www.dexa.org/egovis2012

League of California Cities Annual Conference & Expo

September 5–7
San Diego, CA
Website: http://www.cacities.org/AC

Web of Change (WOC)

September 5–9
Cortes Island, BC, Canada
Website: http://webofchange.com/web-of-change-hollyhock

2012 NAGW National Conference

September 12–14
Kansas City, MO
Website: http://nagw.org/national-conference

67th Annual National Conference on Citizenship

September 14
Philadelphia, PA
Website: http://ncoc.net/conference

Fedtalks

October 11
Washington, DC
Website: http://fedscoop.com/events/fedtalks2012/

6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

October 22-25
Albany, New York, U.S.
Website: http://www.icegov.org/

Gov 2.0 AU

October 23-24
Website: http://www.gov2.com.au/

Involve 2012

November 13-14
Nottingham, United Kingdom
Website: http://www.profbriefings.co.uk/involve2012/

Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy

November 14–16, 2012 (tentative)
Montevideo, Uruguay
Website: http://www.2012globalforum.com

European Parliament posts draft open government declaration online, asks for feedback

Have ideas for improvement to the open government declaration I’ve embedded below? Edits to the document below should make their way back to the original draft.

Coding for community: the story of an ideahack in Chicago

If you’re following the intersection of citizens, technology and cities in the United States in 2012, the story of Chicago is already on your radar, as are the efforts of Code for America. This month, Code for America rolled out its brigades to start coding across America, including the Windy City.

These “brigades” are an effort to empower civic hackers to make apps and services that help their own communities. In Chicago, they’re calling themselves “IdeaHack.”

Below, I’ve embedded a story of their second meeting.

STUDY: On Twitter, Congressional Republicans lead on engagement, links and laws cited

Data from a new study on the use of Twitter by U.S. Senator and Representatives by public relations giant Edelman strongly suggests that the Grand Old Party has opened up a grand old lead in its use of the popular microblogging platform in just about every metric.

On Twitter’s 6th birthday, there’s more political speech flowing through tweets than ever. Twitter data from the study, as provided by Simply Measured, showed that on Twitter, Republican lawmakers are mentioned more, reply more often, are retweeted more, share more links to rich content and webpages, and reference specific bills much more often. Republicans tweet about legislation 3.5 times more than Democrats.

There are also more Republicans on Twitter: while the 89 U.S. Senators who tweet are evenly split, with one more Republican Senator tipping the balance, in the U.S. House there are 67 more Republican Representatives expressing themselves in 140 characters or less.

At this point, it’s worth noting that one of Twitter’s government leads in DC estimated earlier this year that only 15-20% of Congressional Twitter accounts are actually being updated by the Congressmen themselves, but the imbalance stands.

While Edelman DC was quite tactful about what its study on the yeas and nays of the Congressional Twitterverse revealed, the lead Congressional Republicans hold on Twitter has been well documented since 2010, when a study on Twitter in Congress asserted that Democrats use Twitter for transparency, while Republicans use it for outreach. A 2011 survey of social media use in Congress by the Associated Press found that the Republicans similarly “out tweeting” Democrats on Twitter.

While the ways that governments deal with social media cannot be measured by one platform alone nor the activity upon it, the data in the embedded study below be of interest to many, particularly as the window for Congress to pass meaningful legislation narrows as the full election season looms this summer.

In the context of social media and election 2012, how well a Representative or Senator is tweeting could be assessed by whether they can use Twitter to build awareness of political platforms, respond to opposing campaign or, perhaps importantly for the purposes of the election, reach potential voters, help get them registered, and bring them to the polls

Capitol Tweets: Yeas and Nays of the Congressional Twitterverse

Nathan Eung, one of the authors of the study cited above, wrote at Govfresh about how the reasons for using Twitter may be different across party lines

Outreach and transparency are both valuable to a healthy democracy, and to some extent, it is re-assuring that Twitter use is motivated by both reasons. An interesting counter-factual situation would be if the Republicans were the majority party. We may therefore ask in that situation: Is the desire to reach out to (opposing) voters strongest for “losing” parties? Our study certainly hints that Republicans are not only motivated to use Twitter as a means to reach out to their own followers, but also to Democrats, as they are more likely to use Twitter in cases where their district was overwhelmingly in favor President Barack Obama.

All-in-all, it would seem like Twitter is good for the whole Gov 2.0 idea. If Republicans are using Twitter as a means for outreach, then more bills may be passed (note: this has yet to be tested empirically, and still remains an open question for researchers). If Democrats are using Twitter as a means for transparency, then the public benefits from the stronger sense of accountability.

Capitol Tweets: New Edelman Study Looks at U.S. Congressional Performance on Twitter

Is the Facebook “citizen cosponsor” app open government 2.0 or clever e-partisanship?

Yesterday, the Office of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VI) launched a new Facebook application, “Citizen Co-sponsor.” Rep. Cantor introduces it in the video below:

Since its introduction, I’ve been mulling over what to write about the new app. Here’s what I’ve read to date:

First, excellent reporting from TechPresident, where Sara Lai Stirland writes that the new Facebook open graph app makes lawmaking social:

The app enables people to use Facebook to track the progress of House legislation as it makes its way through the chamber, but also provides the majority leader’s office with an interesting new grassroots marketing tool for the Republican party’s ideas.

The new app makes use of Facebook’s Open Graph protocol, which means that once installed, updates to legislation that a user has expressed support for can be automatically posted to their Facebook profiles. It also means that these updates show up in users’ timelines, newsfeeds and tickers, giving the legislation more exposure to users’ networks of friends.

For now, the list of legislation that citizens can choose to support is controlled, of course, by Cantor’s office and is listed on a section of his web site. Citizens can click to “co-sponsor” legislation that they support, and see all the other citizen co-sponsors who’ve expressed their support. Each widget for each piece of legislation also shows a visual storyline of that legislation’s progress through the House.

Second, a post by Alex Fitzpatrick at Mashable on the Facebook citizen cosponsor app , in which he interviewed Matt Lira, the director of digital for the House Majority Leader.

“We have a startup mentality to it,” says Lira. “When Twitter first started, it was just going to be for cell phones, now it is what it is today. It’s evolutionary, so you want to see how users use it and if the engagement justifies it, we’ll expand it out.”

The new media team at Cantor’s office is drawing inspiration from both sides of the aisle. Lira says he’s a fan of Rep. Issa’s (R-Calif.) Madison Project as well as the White House’s “We the People” online petitions. He talked about online bill markups, hearings and expert roundtables as possibilites for ways to expand the Citizen Cosponsor in the future.

“We want the program to give more to users than is asks of them,” says Lira. “The only way this stuff works is if you have a tolerance for experimentation and a certain level of patience. I’ve been impressed with We the People and that’s very experimental — it’s in the spirit of ‘let’s throw something out there and see if it works.’ Otherwise, there’s the alternative: a conference room of ideas that never happen.”

Over at the Huffington Post, POPVOX founder Marci Harris published a long post with substantive concerns about the citizens cosponsors app. (Disclosure: Tim O’Reilly was an early angel investor in POPVOX.) Harris wanted to know more about who the sponsors of the app are (it’s funded by the Office of the Majority Leader), whether feedback will go to a citizen’s Member of Congress, whether “updates” will be neutral or partisan, who will have access to the list of constituents that is generated by the app, the capability to only express support for a bill, versus opposition, and the privacy policy.

In late 2007 when I, as a staffer, shopped an idea around within Congress to create a public platform for constituent engagement, I discovered that it was nearly impossible to build something like that within the institution of Congress outside of the partisan caucus system. You could either build a Democratic-sponsored tool or a Republican-sponsored tool, but there was no structure for building a nonpartisan CONGRESSIONAL tool (and don’t even get me started on how impossible integration between House and Senate was/is.)* My experience does not mean that nonpartisan strides are impossible — just challenging, and that any effort should be viewed with a critical eye.

Dave Copeland published a more critical take on the enterprise this afternoon at ReadWriteWeb, writing that the House Majority leader missed the mark with the Facebook app, asking a key question:

…why not use the publicly available data on all pending legislation and allow citizens to “co-sponsor” any bill currently being weighed by the legislature?

No matter how we feel about Facebook’s privacy provisions, we’ll be the first to admit that it is the default way to connect with people these ways. We’re not poo-poohing any initiative that harnesses social media that makes it easier for people to get involved in the political process, and we’re not bashing this from a partisan point of view. We’re bashing it from a point of view that cares about transparency.

Cantor’s ploy reeks of partisanship disguised as bipartisanship (nowhere on the main page of the site are the words “Democrat” or “Republican” used). And while the Cosponsor Project may be more participatory, it’s certainly not the “open, visible” platform he promises in his introduction.

That all adds up to a strong critique. As the app stands, however, it’s an important first step into the water for integration of Facebook’s social graph into legislation.

That said, there are some flaws, from an unclear Terms of Service to permissive data usage to a quite limited selection of bills that citizens can follow or support.

In addition, as a commenter on Mashable notes, “Unless there’s a way to show how many people are *against* proposed bills, this will not provide a clear picture as to the support they actually have. You might have a significant number of citizen cosponsors (say 25k), but that number loses its significance if the number of people against is, say 125k. You need both measures in order to get an idea as to whether or not a proposed bill is truly supported.”

I’ve asked Lira a number of followup questions and will file something for Radar if he responds. In the meantime, what do you think of the app and the initiative? Please let us know in the comments, keeping the following perspective  from Harris in mind:

As with any startup, the first iteration is never perfect. Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn, famously said, “if you are not embarrassed by your first release, you’ve launched too late.” In that sense, maybe the Majority Leader is learning from the startup world. In an email response to my questions, Matt Lira, Director of New Media for Majority Leader Cantor, seemed to indicate that there were iterations to come: “As was the case when I publicly defended We the People, this is an evolutionary step – there will be continual progress, as with all these things, towards the desired end of a modernized Congress.”

Update: “We’ve always characterized both MADISON and Citizen CoSponsors as digital experiments that we are both admittedly excited about and that I personally believe have great potential to grow,” responded Matt Lira, director of digital for the House Majority Leader’s office, via email.

“These are the type of projects that will modernize our country’s legislative institutions for the social media age,” he wrote. “We are trying really new things like MADISON and Citizens. We are successfully driving institutional reforms on a structural basis. We are the same people who created docs.House.gov, require a public posting period for legislation, and established a machine-readable document standard. In short, people who have done more to open the House of Representatives than anyone in history.”

With respect to “e-partisanship,” Lira noted that “from the moment it launched, the app included a bill sponsored by a Democratic Representative. Some of the other bills – like the JOBS Act – have widespread support on both sides. I launched with six bills, because I wanted to see how the app works in the field, before making any choices about its wider deployment, should that even be justified.”

This post has updated to include a disclosure about Tim O’Reilly’s early investment in POPVOX.