Oct. 23, 2024 — Open Government FAC public meeting #1

The Open Government Federal Advisory Committee convened both in person at the GSA Jess Larson Auditorium located at 1800 F Street, Washington, D.C. 20270, as well as virtually via Zoom. In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1001 et. seq.) the meeting was open to the public from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern time.

Agenda and attendance

Find the full attendance list at the bottom of this page, below the adjournment section

Call to order

Arthur Brunson, the Designated Federal Officer, welcomed attendees to the inaugural public meeting of the Open Government Federal Advisory Committee (OGFAC). The OG FAC will operate under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA. He reminded attendees that the meeting is public and recorded, with materials posted on the official website. Daniel York is the alternate DFO.

Mr. Brunson conducted a roll call and members online unmuted their microphones to confirm attendance. Once a quorum was confirmed per attendance, Mr. Brunson provided an overview of the agenda.

Remarks

GSA leadership

GSA Administrator Robin Carnahan provided opening remarks and emphasized the importance of openness and transparency as fundamental to democracy. She highlighted how increased public participation leads to greater transparency, which in turn fosters accountability and public trust in government institutions. Carnahan shared her personal experience in promoting open government throughout her career, including her role as Secretary of State in Missouri, her work with the National Democratic Institute, and her leadership at GSA. She underscored the administration’s commitment to making government data more accessible and advancing initiatives like the Federal IT dashboard and Challenge.gov, which leverages crowdsourcing to develop innovative government solutions.

Carnahan also discussed the critical role of collaboration between government and the public in ensuring the success of open government initiatives. She pointed out how GSA is working with domestic and international stakeholders to develop the next National Action Plan, addressing emerging issues such as the responsible use of generative AI. Carnahan concluded by encouraging continued efforts toward improving transparency, equity, and engagement, ensuring that the government serves all Americans more effectively. She praised the commitment of committee members, acknowledging their passion and dedication to fostering a more open and accountable government.

White House leadership

Justin Vail, Special Assistant to the President for Democracy and Civil Participation, focused his remarks on the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to safeguarding democracy through transparency and accountability in government. He emphasized that since taking office, the President and Vice President have made the protection of American democracy a central priority. This includes ensuring free, fair, and secure elections, upholding the rule of law, and combating corruption. He stressed that enhancing public trust in government and democratic institutions is essential, especially in light of the growing global and domestic challenges to democracy.

Vail also highlighted the administration’s efforts to advance open government by making government data and information more accessible and encouraging greater public participation in decision-making. He pointed out that this work is particularly urgent given the democratic backsliding seen worldwide and the need to address declining trust in government within the U.S. The administration remains committed to making the Federal Government more responsive, transparent, and accountable, viewing open government initiatives as a critical part of strengthening democracy.

Overview of the U.S. Open Government Secretariat

Daniel York, Director of the U.S. Open Government Secretariat, provided an overview of the purpose and mission of the Secretariat. He emphasized the essential role of transparency, accountability, and public engagement within government, underscoring how these principles strengthen American democracy. He acknowledged the roots of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in the 2009 Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government aimed at enhancing openness, and highlighted the ongoing importance of collaboration between the government and public to foster a responsive and inclusive democratic system.

York expressed optimism in working alongside the committee and the public to uphold these values, adding that the Secretariat is dedicated to supporting a transparent framework for government operations. He thanked the committee members and affirmed the importance of their collective efforts to advance an open, participatory government system.

Chair

Daniel Schuman provided opening remarks as Chair of the Open Government Federal Advisory Committee. He expressed gratitude to the committee members, GSA Administrator Robin Carnahan, Justin Vail of the White House, and the public for their participation. He emphasized the importance of collaboration within the committee and acknowledged the challenges facing the U.S. at times in its pursuit of open government. Schuman highlighted that, compared to other countries, the U.S. is behind in some aspects of public engagement and transparency. He suggested that it would be beneficial to learn from successful international practices, bringing these lessons back to the U.S. to inform open government initiatives.

Schuman proposed that the committee should facilitate presentations from individuals, including committee members, who are knowledgeable about successful open government efforts worldwide. This, he believed, would allow the committee to benefit from a variety of experiences and apply those insights to improve transparency and participation within the U.S. Schuman also engaged with logistical questions about committee procedures, including subcommittee formation and the importance of conducting deliberations in public spaces to ensure transparency. In particular, he recommended a pace of monthly virtual meetings for the committee for the near future. He called for holding three preparatory meetings to collect information and conduct research on three topics: creating an evaluation rubric, engaging with the public, and structuring our subcommittees.

Schuman also discussed the significant constraints on the operation of the federal advisory committee that places significant limits on its ability to collaborate outside meetings. Those include a general prohibition on collaborative documents and group emails, long timelines to schedule meetings, and significant delay in establishing subcommittees.

Committee questions and answers

Members discussed operational and procedural aspects of committee work, emphasizing effective communication and accessibility. One member raised a concern about clarity in public meetings, suggesting that committee members introduce themselves clearly for public comprehension, which Chair Daniel Schuman agreed to incorporate. Schuman proposed a solution for virtual meetings by ensuring names are displayed accurately on Zoom and committed to reviewing meeting minutes to maintain clarity.

The committee agreed with no dissent to an initial pace of monthly virtual meetings and to hold three types of preparatory meetings — on the evaluation rubric, engaging with the public, and whether to establish subcommittees — in advance of the next full committee meeting.

The committee also discussed the value of creating an online library for research materials related to the committee’s work and finding innovative ways to receive feedback from stakeholders, such as ideascale. There was general agreement to investigate these issues further.

Schuman concluded by opening the floor to further questions, clarifying the importance of FACA compliance and transparency, and finalizing consensus on meeting protocols.

History

History and overview of the Open Government Partnership

Joseph Foti, Principal Advisor, Emerging Issues at the Open Government Partnership provided a history and overview of the Open Government Partnership (OGP). He congratulated the committee on its launch and outlined valuable practices from the OGP with an international perspective. He highlighted the importance of engaging citizens and incorporating transparency at every decision-making level, noting that successful open government initiatives are often those that prioritize public participation and measurable, impactful outcomes.

Foti also identified where government plans most likely fail: with ensuring that commitments are actually completed.

The committee engaged in a spirited conversation with Foti concerning the various challenge areas for the Open Government Partnership, best practices for committees in establishing a rubric to evaluate an idea, and what a successful plan looks like.

The committee asked whether OGP would be willing to hold further conversations with the committee about best practices for gathering information, engaging with the public, and evaluating ideas. Foti recommended another person at OGP who could address the committee in the future.

A brief history of Open Government initiatives in the U.S.

Dr. Suzanne J. Piotrowski, Director of the Transparency and Governance Center at Rutgers University Newark, provided a brief history of Open Government initiatives in the U.S. Her presentation covered the definition of open government, activities by the decade, and suggested readings. Transparency and participation are key values used in almost all definitions and often collaboration. Other terms include empowerment, usability and accessibility of information. She explained that her definition includes transparency, accountability, and participation. She asserted that while technology often plays a central role in discussions about Open Government, it is not a prerequisite for effective governance.

While open government has a long history in the United States, she focused her comments on the more recent evolution of Open Government starting from the 1990s, marked by the growth of government websites and significant events like 9/11, which heightened secrecy concerns. The Obama administration’s 2009 executive order on transparency was a pivotal moment, leading to the establishment of biannual Open Government plans and contributing to the framework of the Open Government Partnership (OGP).

Piotrowski highlighted various state and local initiatives as laboratories of innovation, including participatory budgeting in New York City and the use of 311 apps for citizen feedback. She also noted ongoing challenges with meaningful co-creation in National Action Plans, referencing her experience with the Independent Reporting Mechanism.

Piotrowski discussed problems with U.S. government performance in the context of some prior National Action Plans.

She ended with a recommendation for further reading on the topic.

NAP 6 timeline overview

Alexis Masterson provided an overview of the U.S. Open Government Secretariat’s development of the 6th National Action Plan (NAP 6). The current plan expires at the end of December 2024, and NAP 6 is expected to be published by December 2025. The U.S. will follow Open Government Partnership guidelines, maintaining the two-year plan structure historically used.

Masterson outlined a tentative timeline for NAP 6’s development, which includes six steps: analyzing inputs, defining problems, and identifying solutions currently in progress, with public engagement and feedback being prioritized. The drafting phase is scheduled from January to May 2025, followed by a public feedback period until September 2025. The finalization of NAP 5 is targeted for October-November 2024, allowing some buffer time for any unforeseen delays. Throughout the process, opportunities for dialogue between the government and civil society will be encouraged. Masterson concluded by inviting questions from the audience.

Open Government Federal Advisory Committee operations

Daniel Schuman led a discussion of the OG FAC on how they will operate. Members addressed challenges regarding timelines, the establishment of preparatory meetings for upcoming committee work, and the forming of subcommittees. Schuman proposed holding three preparatory meetings before the next full committee meeting in December to gather input and prepare for future discussions. He proposed three specific preparatory meetings focused on evaluation, engagement, and committee structure, aimed at aligning with the broader goals of the OG FAC over the next two years. Up to six members would participate at each meeting to stay under a quorum.

A participant suggested examining these topics through the lens of deliverables, and Schuman agreed that while not everything must fit neatly into these categories, the discussions would still be valuable.

Arthur Brunson explained logistical considerations concerning the operations of the OG FAC. He noted the need for at least 30 days to publish meeting notices. He also addressed the complexities involved in forming subcommittees, which require formal approval and oversight, and can take up to 90 days to establish. He clarified that these subcommittees would not operate independently but would report findings back to the full committee.

Brunson recommended creating a questionnaire for each meeting to identify areas of interest among participants. Schuman confirmed that invitations for the preparatory meetings would go out soon, noting that these would be virtual to accommodate scheduling challenges.

Participants also discussed the timeline for future meetings, including the potential for an in-person meeting in Washington, D.C., although details were not yet available. There was interest in holding additional meetings in November to maintain momentum.

The Committee endorsed a monthly pace of hybrid meetings for the near future and supported holding the three preparatory meetings in advance of the next full committee meeting.

The OG FAC also discussed how they can receive feedback and share resources. They asked the DFO to investigate how the U.S. Open Government Secretariat website could support the sharing of resources.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the commitment to an organized approach to input for the National Action Plan (NAP 6), with an emphasis on preparation and effective use of time during the committee’s upcoming work. Participants were encouraged to share ideas via email to facilitate collaboration while respecting procedural guidelines.

Public comments

Submitted, prior to the meeting

One (1) public written comment was received prior to the meeting, from Mitchell Berger, on Oct. 14.

I write to suggest that the newly chartered Open Government Federal Advisory Committee reiterate to Federal agencies and their advisory committees their obligation to post meeting minutes in a timely manner. Specifically, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act: “[A]gencies should post the meeting minutes on the agency advisory committee website (if one exists) not later than 14 calendar days after the meeting minutes have been certified.”

(1) While I will not cite examples in this comment, I can think of numerous instances when I have found agencies failing to post minutes from meetings that occurred months or even years ago. This obstructs public understanding of what committees are doing and their work. The Open Government committee should reiterate agency obligations to post these minutes. Moreover, if agencies have failed to do so, they should be encouraged to update committee or agency Web sites to post materials for previous meetings such as those that occurred years ago even if they have not previously done so. Likewise, and for the same reasons, agencies should be encouraged to post written public comments they receive as well as meeting transcripts.

(2) While some agencies no doubt make these types of records available upon request, it would be helpful as a standard practice to proactive share with the public online all such materials.

Thank you for your consideration of this input.

Digitally signed by Mitchell Berger [10/14/2024]  |  Document version: Public meeting #1 — Comment 01 [PDF - 129 KB]

Spoken, during the meeting

White House closing remarks

Kei Koizumi shared closing remarks on behalf of the White House Office of Technology Policy, emphasizing the U.S. commitment to open government principles dating back to President Obama’s 2009 memorandum on transparency. He congratulated the new Open Government Federal Advisory Committee and thanked the General Services Administration (GSA) for their efforts in establishing it.

Koizumi highlighted the role of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in promoting openness and engagement, referencing key initiatives like the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Act, and the Evidence Act. He expressed pride in the expansion of the Open Government movement across various levels of government and noted the importance of the newly launched committee as a platform for collaboration between civil society and government. He encouraged committee members to navigate the challenges ahead, reinforcing the need to connect open government efforts with the American people and stakeholders globally. Koizumi concluded by thanking GSA Administrator Carnahan for her leadership and reaffirmed the commitment to uphold democratic principles through this initiative.

Adjournment

Mr. Brunson adjourned the meeting at 3:46 p.m. Eastern time

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.

Full list of attendees