The White House today solicited public recommendations for greater openness in government.
“Members of the public are invited to participate in the process of developing recommendations [by] offering comments, ideas, and proposals about possible initiatives and about how to increase openness and transparency in government,” according to a notice published in the Federal Register today.
“Comments may address law, policy, technology, culture, and practice on issues such as: What government information should be more readily available on-line or more easily searched? How might the operations of government be made more transparent and accountable?… What alternative models exist to improve the quality of decisionmaking and increase opportunities for citizen participation? What are the limitations to transparency?” Comments are due by June 19.
This request for public comments itself already represents an advance over past practice, because it is based on an official consensus in favor of increasing openness. “Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing,” President Obama stated on January 21. “Public engagement enhances the Government’s effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions,” he said.
These principles, having been affirmed by the President, no longer need to be debated. Instead, the question is how to realize them in practice.
Today’s Federal Register notice was signed by John P. Holdren, the White House science adviser. Holdren was formerly a chairman of the Federation of American Scientists and was also, years ago, a professor of mine at UC Berkeley.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.