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

Fri Nov 22 10:33:07 UTC 2013

Oliver,

, 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?

Not very deep, IMO.  I just hope that this OGP process will change that.

The German sociologist Weber pointed out that “Secrecy is the only power of
bureaucracy”

Swift in Gulliver’s Travels pointed out that “Providence never intended to
make the management of public affairs a mystery to be comprehended by a few
persons of sublime genius.”

In 1953, during another time of social, economic and fiscal crisis here, a
former Assistant Secretary to the Government pointed out that 

“The success of any public policy depends no less on its intrinsic merits
than on the quality of the public service that executes it
 The civil
servant’s task is at any time a difficult one; it will not be lightened if
he fails to bring the public closer into his confidence
In shaping the Civil
Service to the satisfactory discharge of its present-day responsibilities,
the public may reasonably expect to know how the official mind works and to
understand the thought that animates it” 

IMO, the FoI fees issue augur poorly for the implementation of an Open
Government policy here.  

I still regard as extraordinary that a Professor Politics and lead adviser
to the Constitutional Convention would term the way in which the Minister
brought in the change to the FoI fees as “Dáil reform my a**e”.

Is this an indication that some – who have been deeply involved in the drive
for political and institutional reform (as you know, David Farrell was a key
driver in the WetheCitizens effort) – think that Plus ca change, plus c’est
la meme chose?

Donal Ó Brolcáin

From: open-government-ireland at googlegroups.com
[mailto:open-government-ireland at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Oliver Moran
Sent: 22 November 2013 09:02
To: Nat O'Connor
Cc: admin at ogpireland.ie; communications at ogpireland.ie;
okfn-irl at lists.okfn.org; open-data-ireland at googlegroups.com;
open-government-ireland at googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Proposal on a process to advance the OGP Project

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 <tel:%2B353%201%206169050> 
Email: noconnor at tascnet.ie
Web:   www.tasc.ie <http://www.tasc.ie/> 
Blog:   www.progressive-economy.ie <http://www.progressive-economy.ie/> 

Description: Description: cid:image001.gif at 01C9F643.59B9A470Research and
Organisation Services Ltd. TA/ TASC. Registered Address: Hill House, 26 Sion
Hill Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9. Company No. 342993. CHY 14778.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-irl/attachments/20131122/cd4a0c1f/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/cd4a0c1f/attachment-0005.gif>