Or so says Simon Dickson. He makes a valid point that the tweeting from Hazel Blears, the Minister for Communities, felt a little too eager. The continuing use of the third person was slightly unsettling as well.

Still, it’s only her first day.

Dave notes that her consultative process is limited to a week, and her online activity may be as well. I didn’t get a sense that the tweets had been pre-programmed (after all, as Simon points out, we already have a fairly large sample size to review)

Still, are our British colleagues missing the forest for the trees? They have a PM and two Ministers tweeting, soliciting comment and petitions online, running blogs and pulling back the curtain - at least somewhat.

That’s infinitely more than any other government in the world.

Technorati Tags: egov, Gov 2.0, Hazel Blears

Just last month, a team of researchers at Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy argued that governments should make their vast datasets available through open interfaces, certain in the conviction that individuals, community groups and self-organizing interest groups would be able to develop flexible and far more useful applications than any bureaucracy.

“Rather than struggling, as it currently does, to design sites that meet each end-user need, we argue that the executive branch should focus on creating a simple, reliable and publicly accessible infrastructure that exposes the underlying data. Private actors, either nonprofit or commercial, are better suited to deliver government information to citizens and can constantly create and reshape the tools individuals use to find and leverage public data.”

This is not a new argument - people have been creating mashups from public data for several years now, as Tara Hunt and Factory Joe point out in the slideshow below.

| View | Upload your own

You know, intuitively, that this is a fantastic idea that can only have positive effects for the general public. As a bureaucrat, however, you also know that institutional roadblocks litter the road ahead:

• government-wide open source software standards? (until recently, the Canadian government had departments that mandated the use of WordPerfect)
• data collection programs that are required to be self-sustaining
• long term contracts for certain types of data (like weather data, shipping statistics)
• statistical agencies that jealously guard their data like a mystical elixir that is the source of all their power
• knee jerk concerns for the integrity of the data (and the agencies that originally collected it)

There’s a subtle irony: I suspect the some of the same people who now argue for open and transparent government were vocal proponents for responsible and efficient government in the 1990s. The intrinsic spirit is the same - opening up government and forcing it to recognize the real needs of the citizenry.

As we all now know, throughout the ’90s governments learned to measure activity, to track performance and to set up fee for service regimes as a result.

We’re now faced with a situation where business processes, network specifications, technological limits and institutional reticence are preventing true innovation in how governments serve their citizens.

I just have to wonder how long it will take public sector IT specialists to be fundamentally and professionally embarrassed that they are being handed their asses on a platter by weekend code warriors?

Would you like some insight into how the general public perceives government efforts to jump on the Web 2.0 bandwagon? Thanks to regulations requiring the release of public opinion research reports no more than 6 months after their commissioning, we all have access to New Technologies and Government of Canada Communications, an analysis of focus groups conducted across Canada in September 2007.

This research, sponsored by a number of Government of Canada departments, asked three separate strata of Canadian society (Web 2.0 users, occasional internet users, and non-users) a series of questions about their impressions of government activities online and what they would think of government efforts to launch “Web 2.0″ technologies.

The results were blunt, if only qualitative.

“… the [Government of Canada] should not adopt Web 2.0 applications simply to look ‘cool’ or modern, but rather should adopt specific applications to address specific communications or service requirements, where such applications can more effectively address the objectives than pre-existing methods.”

… At present, Web 2.0 users have no expectations regarding the adoption of such applications by the Government of Canada (in other words, most have never thought about this).

Despite this lack of expectations, there was a near consensus among Web 2.0 users (as well as among members of the other two audiences) that the government should use these new applications to communicate with and provide service to Canadians …

When participants were shown specific examples of how these applications are being used by different governments, … many said they were impressed by the range of applications available. Positive reactions also typically included impressions that these applications make government less remote, allow for greater citizens influence over government, and allow government to reach different cross-sections of the population …”

The public opinion research specialists concluded, from these comments, that Canadians could see their government using Web 2.0 tools to seek out opinion and feedback on evolving policy and emerging issues.

That means we’re back to the old dilemma about consultations: how much capacity exists to really listen to a large number of concerned citizens? How can their contributions be reflected equitably in the final product? Can we handle a truly participatory process when it is accelerated by Web 2.0 technology? (’cause we can’t really handle it now!)

This natural skepticism emerges in the analysis:

“… Feedback tended to be general and focused on a range of issues, including: allowing citizens to choose or help choose topics of discussion, ensuring that consultations are well advertised and easy to locate, providing advance information on topics, ensuring that participation is easy, ensuring that high-level public servants or politicians are involved, providing information on next steps/follow-up to consultations, and ensuring that the consultations are meaningful and will result in concrete outcomes.

In addition to being in favour of using these applications for consultations, most Internet users said they themselves would participate if it was on a topic that interested them.

Doubt expressed about the GC’s use of the applications for public consultations focused squarely on perceptions that they would not result in meaningful outcomes …”

Participants also made it clear that their government would have to continue to work through more traditional channels of communication - a decision I would consider assumed by most government communicators, but often lost in the enthusiasm to demonstrate that we, the stodgy bureaucrats, are on to the new new thing.

There were other interesting/startling observations in the research (all government blogs, no matter what their subject, should be found on one common site? Citizens don’t hold much confidence in blogs, which can be seen as platforms for opinion, not fact?), and the document provides a detailed analysis of the research.

The United Kingdom Civil Service has come out with its Guidance on Participation Online, and the document is a beauty to behold. Short, simple, and, best of all, a document that encourages action and risk-taking.

Running the text through Wordle reveals that the writers have put the emphasis on the right concepts: representative, disclose, being aware, online participation - all enabling terms.

Peter Spaghetti, Dave and Emma (and Jeremy)have all commented on the guidelines ahead of me, but I don’t hold that against them.

Technorati Tags: Civil Servant Guidelines for Online Participation, United Kingdom, Govt 2.0

Well. I find myself in an interesting situation. After years of working as a government communicator, albeit with extensive exposure to the policy development process, I have just moved over to a largely research-based role.

This means I am busy ginning up on leading an actual policy and research function. And adjusting to being responsible for a planning window that extends beyond next Tuesday (us communicators, especially media relations types, are notoriously short sighted).

You may have felt the effects - my posting rate has been erratic of late.

Rest assured, my interest in communications and social media remains strong (and I am restraining from making a lame Yoda reference here).

But I’m certainly being helped by these great guides from New Zealand, via Jason.

Here in Canada, we’re undergoing a routine review of all our major government-wide administrative policies - and that includes the Government Communications Policy.

Earlier this week, the Auditor General of Canada was appearing before a Standing Committee of Parliament, speaking to MPs about her department’s spending plans for the upcoming year.

An opposition Member of Parliament, David Christopherson, asked the Auditor General about the rumoured revisions to the Communications Policy. As one news report characterized their exchange:

“… [The Auditor General] … revealed this week that the government is drafting a new policy that could require departments to vet their communications plans through the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing of the Prime Minister’s Office.

“There’s a draft communication policy going around that would have all communication strategies, all communications, everything, go through Privy Council Office,” Fraser told a Commons committee on Tuesday. “Well, I can tell you there is no way that my press releases about my report are going to go to Privy Council Office or our communications strategies are going to be vetted by Privy Council Office.”…” (Toronto Star)

You see, the Auditor General is an Officer of Parliament - her and five other Officers* are considered independent of the Government of the day.

The exchange got a little news coverage.

All thanks to the liveblogging of Macleans journalist Kady O’Malley.

I mean, who liveblogs parliamentary committee meetings? A lot of them?

Despite the attention paid to the exchange, it’s important to note a separate paragraph from the Toronto Star piece cited above:

“… Treasury Board President Vic Toews wrote the six officers of Parliament in March saying he wants to “preserve and strengthen” their independence. “I fully accept that due to the unique statutory mandates of agents of Parliament, not all Treasury Board instruments can be applied to these offices in exactly the same manner as they would to other government institutions,” he wrote…”

*and I happen to work at one of those Offices, in the interest of full disclosure. At the moment, our communications materials do not go to PCO for review or approval. And we don’t expect that to change in the future.

and I’m jealous of all the other Brits, heading off to their facilitation get-togethers, their community building projects and their semi-secretive social media initiatives for government.

Look at this recent twitter from Simon:

@Canuckflack Wait til you see next week. We’re going mashup crazy.

Meanwhile, he’s also pointing to experiments like the twittering of the next diplomatic mission to Washington. This from the official statement from 10 Downing Street:

“…Gordon Brown will visit the US next week, his second trip to the country as Prime Minister.

The Downing Street website will run a live microsite including images, rolling updates and a Twitter feed throughout the PM’s stay from 16 - 19 April. Log on from Wednesday to follow the PM’s activities.

Mr Brown is expected to visit Boston, the United Nations in New York and meet President Bush at the White House in Washington. His meetings will focus on the global economy and other areas of mutual bilateral interest.

Gordon Brown’s first trip to the US as PM saw him travel to Camp David in July last year.

Seeing as I AM a social media nerd, or a real politics nerd, I would ask:

• does this mean there’s a communications assistant responsible for the twitter feed?
• what sort of vetting process is there for twitter messages? On the fly?
• is the content going to concentrate on policy announcements? Any chance of side remarks about the entrees at the state dinner? Snide remarks about the little kids handing over flowers at events?
• what sort of twitter app are they going to use? Is it on a BlackBerry, Treo or other PDA?

Technorati Tags: government communications, United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, twitter, public diplomacy

Michael Bryant, Ontario’s Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, has posted a series of 5 videos on a new YouTube channel, all dealing with a contentious aboriginal land claim in Caledonia, Ontario.

Over the past twenty years (or so), there have been several dramatic and sometimes violent confrontations over aboriginal land claims in Quebec and Ontario.

These videos seem to be an attempt to demonstrate the Government of Ontario’s continuing engagement in the dispute in Caledonia - which has been ongoing for two years.

While the medium encourages unrehearsed and somewhat rough production values, these videos may just be too informal for such a serious subject.

They are shot in a casual and unscripted style, with WAY TOO MANY references to the Tim Horton’s donut chain. In fact, it has become trite for politicians to use the local Tim Horton’s as the universal “man on the street” interview booth.

That said, the opposition parties’ criticism of the tactic seems blind to the opportunities presented by new media channels like YouTube and other video sharing sites.

“… “It shows complete lack of leadership on the part of [Ontario’s] McGuinty government,” said [New Democratic Party leader] Mr. Hampton, adding Mr. Bryant’s video campaign just makes a joke out of a serious situation.

“YouTube is not the place to communicate either policy or to communicate government messages. But this seems to be the kind of three-ring circus that Dalton McGuinty is running now.” (Canadian Press)

Over at our Department of Defense, they’ve been flipping around a powerpoint called “Killing with Keyboards” - which makes a very strong point that employees in defense areas can undermine national security simply by being too careless with their work documents and divulging too much about themselves in online communities - even communities ostensibly dedicated to professional development.

The powerpoint was prepared by a private sector contractor, and has been distributed to other groups as well.

The message, driven home with blunt force, is that your frequent but minor indiscretions online can accumulate into quite a database about your personal preferences (food, team - simple stuff like that), which can then be exploited by enemy agents and put your fellow citizens at risk.

Which is why it’s slightly disturbing that the powerpoint’s metadata itself provides enough information that, with a few Google searches, we can pinpoint the author, a gentleman who works here.

At what appears to be the Boeing Electronic Systems and Missile Defense Research and Technology Center.

 E-government gets a broad strokes treatment from the Economist in a special report:  The road to e-democracy. This from the  leader:

“… But shame and beauty contests are still weak forces in the public sector. Failure in bureaucracy means not bankruptcy but writing self-justifying memos, and at worst a transfer elsewhere. Bureaucrats plead that just a bit more time and money will fix the clunky monsters they have created …

That reflects another problem. In the private sector, tight budgets for information technology spark innovation. But bureaucrats are suckers for overpriced, overpromised and overengineered systems. The contrast is all the sharper given some of the successes shown by those using open-source software: the District of Columbia, for example, has junked its servers and proprietary software in favour of the standard package of applications offered and hosted by Google …”

Well, there are plenty of reasons why a government shouldn’t simply transfer all of its IT needs to one supplier - especially one as demonized as Google - but at least D.C. is trying.