[Okfn-irl] Proposal on a process to advance the OGP Project

Fri Nov 22 09:01:36 UTC 2013

Nat,

This sounds good to me.

Not wanting to stir up trouble, but the FOI debacle struck me as a
difference in values. I wonder how much openness is considered a "nice
idea" and "fine in principle". How deep do the values of openness run?

Two of your points strike me in this regard:

"All formal records of the process (e.g. Agendas, Minutes) should be posted
online in a timely fashion after each meeting, so that wider civil society
and the general public can access them and monitor the process;"

"Another 9 additional actions were submitted in parallel to this process,
leading to a total of 71 civil society proposed actions (some of which have
multiple aspects to them);"

Ironically, openness is seemingly missing from this process on openness. I
only have a record of the meeting with William Beausang because I asked
someone to attend and take minutes. And does anyone know what the 9
additional actions submitted in parallel are? I submitted one of them. So,
I guess I'm more privileged that other in having access to part of that
knowledge :-)

So, long story short, I think there needs to be a commitment and
development of open values (as much as "actions") as part of this process.
Over the long term, I think achieving less "actions" now but setting the
right "values" in those actions (and how we act) is more important to open
government in Ireland.

Oliver

On 21 November 2013 08:36, Nat O'Connor <noconnor at tascnet.ie> wrote:

> *What follows is a letter to everyone who participated in the civil
> society meeting with Government officials on 25th October, to anyone who
> attended the OGP consultations run by Transparency Ireland and to anyone
> interested in promoting more open government in Ireland – please feel free
> to circulate. (I have send this email to the above lists, also BCC’d to 43
> individual email addresses I have from our discussions of OGP to date)*
>
>
>
> *Please let me know if you think this is (or isn’t) a good proposal to
> send to the Government Reform Unit.*
>
>
>
>
>
> At the meeting (25th October) of civil society activists with William
> Beausang and officials from the Government Reform Unit at DPER, it was
> suggested that we propose a process to them to inform their own submission
> to the Government meeting of late November. I’m conscious that time is
> pressing on this.
>
>
>
> Two significant things have occurred subsequently to the October meeting.
> Firstly, some civil society people attended the two-day global Open
> Government Partnership summit in London (31st Oct/1st Nov), which was
> preceded for those who could attend by civil society meetings and open data
> meetings earlier in the week. Secondly, there has been a major public
> dispute about FOI fees and a real risk that the amended FOI Act will
> increase the barriers to FOI usage through higher costs associated with
> non-personal FOI requests, which runs counter to the goals of the OGP.
>
>
>
> The summit provided lots of useful information and examples of how OGP is
> working in other countries, the pitfalls as well as the success stories.
> There is a vibrant international movement for OGP – but one limited by
> resources and still in its fragile early stages.
>
>
>
> In relation to FOI up-front fees, I believe these should be abolished.
>
>
>
> But OGP is about more than FOI, and it is important that Ireland puts in
> place a robust process for civil society engagement with Government about
> our first OGP Action Plan and its implementation (and annual renewal). This
> process should be solid enough to permit us to have a serious debate with
> Government about the merits and demerits of FOI fees, without allowing this
> issue to block further progress on the other 70 proposed actions from the
> OGP consultancy process.
>
>
>
> At our discussion at the October meeting, I recall that a potential
> impasse was identified. Civil society has put forward 71 recommended
> actions; however the Government has yet to put forward their own list of
> proposed actions, derived from the Programme for Government and from civil
> service suggestions from the relevant Departments. We risk getting bogged
> down if either side wants to stick to their preferred list and go through
> each item one after the other in exhaustive detail.
>
>
>
> William Beausang noted that the national OGP Action Plans are meant to be
> short documents and he suggested that we begin the Irish Action Plan with a
> higher level narrative text, informed by both lists of proposed actions.
> Out of this higher level text, we would then derive a set of SMART actions
> for the first plan. These would differ in detail from some of the proposals
> from either side, but they would hopefully address a large number of them
> and provide a basis for substantive progress on some of the OGP goals. (I
> would add, this should not close down further discussion on any proposals
> from civil society).
>
>
>
> Based on this, the following is my suggestion:
>
>
>
> 1.       We want a process that leads to a jointly-drafted Action Plan
> between civil society and Government;
>
>
>
> 2.       A steering group drawn from civil society needs to be
> established to provide continuity of contact between wider civil society
> and the Government. We need a small number of volunteers to commit to
> attending a regular number of meetings between now and April 2014, to
> engage with the Government on jointly-drafting the first Irish Action Plan;
>
>
>
> 3.       The Government needs to commit to a series of meetings between
> now and April 2014 to work jointly on the first Irish OGP Action Plan;
>
>
>
> 4.       All formal records of the process (e.g. Agendas, Minutes) should
> be posted online in a timely fashion after each meeting, so that wider
> civil society and the general public can access them and monitor the
> process;
>
>
>
> 5.       Members of civil society have been consulted by Transparency
> International Ireland, leading to a report containing 62 recommended
> actions (some of which are multiple actions). Another 9 additional actions
> were submitted in parallel to this process, leading to a total of 71 civil
> society proposed actions (some of which have multiple aspects to them);
>
>
>
> 6.       The Government is to produce a list of its own proposed actions
> for inclusion in the OGP Action Plan;
>
>
>
> 7.       The first meeting of the Joint Government-Civil Society OGP
> Steering Group (hereafter Steering Group) should agree headers for high
> level narrative text within the first Action Plan – drawing on experience
> from other countries’ plans;
>
>
>
> 8.       These headers should be elaborated with text that accurately
> reflects the diverse ideas and the overall direction of travel indicated in
> the TI report of the civil society consultations. It should equally
> represent the Programme for Government/civil service proposals;
>
>
>
> 9.       Based on the high level text, subsequent meetings of the
> Steering Group should agree SMART actions to be included in the first
> Action Plan;
>
>
>
> 10.   A draft Action Plan should then be published with sufficient time
> for wider civil society and the general public to make comments and
> suggestions;
>
>
>
> 11.   The joint Steering Group than should meet to agree the final plan
> text for submission to the OGP Summit in April.
>
>
>
> 12.   Periodic meetings of the joint Steering Group should continue to
> monitor progress on the plan, and prepare for its renewal.
>
>
>
> Come April 2014, no one is likely to be perfectly happy with the resultant
> Action Plan, however I would hope that it would give civil society the best
> possible compromise and a solid basis to see some new open government
> actions implemented that go beyond what was anticipated in the Programme
> for Government.
>
>
>
> Likewise, I would hope that the process would provide a basis for working
> together and with Government on open government that would be sustainable
> throughout the lifetime of the plan.
>
>
>
> One obvious sticking point is who from civil society gets to join the
> Steering Group? I suggest a group five or six people, to keep it
> manageable, all of whom should commit to attending monthly meetings until
> April 2014 and less frequent meetings thereafter. They would also have to
> commit to regular communication with wider civil society. I would like to
> see a balanced group, with no more than one or two people sharing the same
> organisational affiliation, and a balance of the sectors/interests
> represented in the consultation (e.g. those seeking open data; those
> seeking accountability for environmental decisions; those concerned with
> social justice; etc.). This is inevitably going to be a self-selected
> group, hence the importance of posting documents online and keeping
> channels of communication open with others. The membership of this group
> should be refreshed annually.
>
>
>
> There is already work ongoing to form a series of thematic working groups
> (following similar topics to the ones being formed at international level
> in OGP), so that everyone interested in a given topic has an opportunity to
> voice their suggestions and concerns between meetings of the Steering
> Group. Facilitating this and attending relevant working groups would be an
> additional commitment required of anyone volunteering to join the Steering
> Group.
>
>
>
> I hope this is of some use in moving things forward. Comments welcome.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Nat
>
> *Nat O'Connor *MA PhD
>
> Director
>
> *TASC – Think-tank for Action on Social Change*
>
> *Second Floor, Castleriver House, 14-15 Parliament Street*
> *Dublin 2, Ireland*
>
> *Tel:     +353 1 6169050 <%2B353%201%206169050>*
> *Email: noconnor at tascnet.ie <noconnor at tascnet.ie>*
> *Web:   www.tasc.ie <http://www.tasc.ie/>*
> *Blog:   www.progressive-economy.ie <http://www.progressive-economy.ie/>*
>
> *[image: Description: Description: cid:image001.gif at 01C9F643.59B9A470]*Research
> and Organisation Services Ltd. TA/ TASC. Registered Address: Hill House, 26
> Sion Hill Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9. Company No. 342993. CHY 14778.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-irl/attachments/20131122/d79f1e5e/attachment-0005.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2081 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-irl/attachments/20131122/d79f1e5e/attachment-0005.gif>