Jan. 8, 2025 — Open Government FAC public meeting #3

The Open Government Federal Advisory Committee will convene virtually via Zoom on Jan. 8. In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1001 et. seq.) the meeting will be open to the public from 1–4 p.m. Eastern time. Please register in advance.

Agenda and attendance

Written public comments received

None

Call to order

Arthur Brunson, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO), welcomed attendees to the third public meeting of the Open Government Federal Advisory Committee (OG FAC). Operating under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the meeting was public and recorded, with materials posted on the official website. Daniel York served as the alternate DFO. Mr. Brunson confirmed attendance, established a quorum, and provided an agenda overview.

Mr. Brunson reminded the attendees that the purpose of the OG FAC is to advise GSA on emerging open government issues and the U.S. Open Government National Action Plan

Committee chair remarks

Daniel Schuman, the Committee Chair, acknowledged the progress made in prior meetings and thanked members and attendees. Mr. Schuman also reminded attendees that all materials, including the agenda, video, slides, and other materials will be posted on GSA’s website for the Open Government Federal Advisory Committee. Mr. Schuman encouraged anyone with comments to submit them to ogfac@gsa.gov and to sign up for oral comments. Mr. Schuman explained that they invited public stakeholders from the Blueprint for Accountability to present at this meeting. As they were not available today, that item will hopefully be at the February meeting.

Overview of NAP RFI responses

Presenters: Alexis Masterson and Laura Szakmary, U.S. Open Government Secretariat

Ms. Masterson provided an overview of the responses to the Request for Information (RFI) for the 6th National Action Plan (NAP). The RFI was posted on the Federal Register and was open from September 12 - November 12, 2024 for anyone to respond. The RFI focus areas were problem identification, existing work, innovative approaches, and suggestions for resources. The U.S. Open Government Secretariat provided the Open Government Partnership challenge themes as a framework to help structure the responses and ensure all aspects of open government would be addressed.

The RFI received 51 total responses and 47 were able to be posted publicly. Twenty-three of those responses came from organizations, including large organizations where their main work is related to open government. 19 comments were from individuals, four were from coalitions, and one was an anonymous comment. Ms. Szakmary emphasized the need for a better outreach campaign in the future and asked FAC members to make suggestions for improvements.

They provided an overview of the major themes of the comments based on the Open Government Partnerships’s 10 challenge themes. Many of the comments touched on multiple themes. Over half of the comments provided a commitment to Access to Information (53%) and a little under half were tied to Digital Governance (43%). Other comments focused on the themes of Public Participation (28%), Anti-Corruption (26%), Fiscal Openness (23%), Justice (17%), Equity and Inclusion (11%), Climate and Environment (6%), Civic Space (4%), and Media Freedom (2%).

Ms. Masterson and Ms. Szakmary then went through each of these themes and provided an overview of the types of responses as well as generally representative sample excerpts of commitment ideas:

• Access to Information: enhancing transparency, public access, usability of government data and information, proactive disclosure, developing frameworks for different sorts of government data, using AI, modernizing FOIA, standardized data formats, and the need to have open data standards and to make government data machine-readable.
• Digital Governance: centralized platforms and interagency collaboration.
• Public Participation: online engagement tools and forums.
• Anti-Corruption: ethics commitments, financial disclosures, whistleblower protections, data accessibility, and beneficial ownership transparency.
• Fiscal Openness: upgrading USAspending.gov, blockchain for tracking, and standardizing financial reports.
• Justice: overlaps with other themes and a request for Office of Legal Counsel opinions and modernization of PACER.
• Climate and Environment: data quality and accessibility and provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

In response to a question about how they categorized comments, Ms. Masterson and Ms. Szakmary discussed the criteria of SMART (specific, measurable, answerable, relevant, and timebound, commitments.

The committee members provided comments and asked questions following the presentation. These included the following comments:

• Steven Kull: Suggested integrating Congressional modernization recommendations and proposed using public polling data to gauge broader sentiment.
• Amy Holmes: Advocated for enhancing transparency in federal fund tracing to local levels and suggested modernizing financial reporting systems to align with recent laws.
• Kristen Honey: Highlighted inclusivity for individuals with disabilities, including those with chronic conditions.
• Joyce Ajayi: Recommended collaborating with local governments and think tanks for data collection and insights.
• Suzanne Piotrowski: Asked what kind of feedback the U.S. Open Government Secretariat is looking for from the OG FAC and how they can figure out what to prioritize.

Ms. Masterson and Ms. Szakmary agreed to refine the RFI summaries and share them with the OG FAC members. The members will then provide additional input on draft recommendations. The U.S. Open Government Secretariat will consider public polling tools.

• Timeline for NAP 6 development:
  • Public feedback collection until December 2024.
  • Drafting from January to May 2025.
  • Finalization by October-November 2025.
• Discussion points:
  • Strategies for broader public outreach.
  • Incorporating emerging issues like AI and blockchain for transparency.
  • Balancing timeline alignment with stakeholder engagement during administrative transitions.

Break (10 minutes)

Report out from Evaluation Group preparatory meeting

Presenter: Kiril Jakimovski

Following the 10 minute break, Mr. Jakimovski explained the goal of the proposed evaluation framework to measure alignment of recommendations with public interest and feasibility. The Evaluation preparatory group took the many dimensions suggested previously and pared them down for the OG FAC. They put together a rubric with 4 dimensions:

• Practicality and Specificity.
• Impact and Ambition.
• Engagement and Commitment.
• Alignment with Open Government Principles.

The rubric will be used to determine which of the proposals they want to include in their guidance to GSA. The general idea is that the top left quadrant are high-impact, low effort ideas. The top right quadrants are high impact, but also high effort. The bottom left and right on low impact. The group also introduced scoring criteria to prioritize proposals by impact and effort.

In response to the Evaluation group’s rubric, the OG FAC suggested the need for diverse recommendations across themes and how to balance low-effort, high-impact ideas with ambitious proposals requiring significant resources. The OG FAC also discussed the need for transparency in the evaluation criteria and how to incorporate lessons learned from past NAP recommendations.

Daniel York responded to questions about clarifying the purpose, scope, and timing of feedback that OG FAC members should provide on the presented recommendations. He acknowledged that the OG FAC and the U.S. Open Government Secretariat are moving on parallel tracks. The OG FAC should make their suggestions to GSA for ideas to include.

Daniel Schuman emphasized the importance of member expertise in shaping actionable recommendations while balancing the constraints of time and procedural limits. He also discussed using tools like evaluation rubrics to standardize assessments and align recommendations with SMART criteria, ensuring they are impactful and feasible.

The group consensus was to move to develop a formal evaluation rubric and integrate public demand signals.

Administrative updates

Presenters: Daniel Schuman and Arthur Brunson

Mr. Brunson provided updates on the establishment of the three approved subcommittees. The package is being drafted. Each member will receive a survey to indicate which subcommittee(s) they wish to join. Once the package is together, it will be sent to GSA’s management official for approval and submission.

Mr. Brunson also shared a reminder that the Federal Advisory Committee Act is not a public participation statute, it is a transparency statute. The public is in attendance to observe how the government is getting its advice from the appointed members and to provide comments to the Committee. The members are appointed based on their expertise to provide that advice. He then thanked the members for their work.

Daniel Schuman shared the tentative dates for future meetings in 2025, including full committee and subcommittee meetings.

Full committee meetings

• March 21, 2025
• April 23, 2025
• May 21, 2025
• June 18, 2025
• July 23, 2025
• September 24, 2025
• October 22, 2025
• November 19, 2025
• December 10, 2025

Subcommittee meetings

• February 26, 2025
• April 2, 2025
• May 7, 2025
• June 4, 2025
• July 9, 2025
• August 20, 2025
• September 10, 2025
• October 15, 2025
• November 5, 2025

Virtual meetings are planned unless funding allows for in-person events. The OG FAC discussed the upcoming Sunshine Week in March 2025 and how it would be a good time to have an in-person OG FAC meeting. There are likely funding limitations from GSA for this idea.

OG FAC members should send their survey responses for subcommittee preferences by January 24, 2025.

Public oral comments

Arthur Brunson facilitated the public comments:

• Speakers:
  • Jacob Pasner from Georgetown University emphasized the need to discuss federal contracting, including interoperability for governance requirements for federal contracts, investing in state and local government digital services, and look to the national secure data service and Chief Data Officer Council to promulgate those standards and get people into the same environment so they can collaborate.
  • Dustin Bryce, representing Interest of Justice, expressed the group’s partnership proposal to establish a public participation innovation lab to pilot and scale methodologies and create cross-border knowledge and exchange program connecting US Agencies with counterparts and develop standardized metrics for developing the quality impact on participation.
  • Alexander Howard emphasized the legitimacy of virtual public meetings and the value of a public chat feature to enable interaction among participants. He objected to GSA for closing registration early and limiting public comments to three minutes without follow-up opportunities, advocating for a more participatory process. Additionally, he urged for ambitious, SMART commitments in the NAP, transparency in decision-making, and addressing secrecy issues, ethics, and co-creation shortcomings while recommending Congress engage more actively in open government initiatives.
  • Stephen Buckley highlighted their long-standing involvement in U.S. open government initiatives since before the Open Government Partnership (OGP) was established. They criticized the layering of the OGP on top of the existing Open Government Directive without a review of processes or past commitments, many of which remain unfinished or only partially completed. They recommended a thorough examination of why public satisfaction has not improved over 15 years, citing the lack of metrics for public feedback and the need for evidence of progress to restore trust in democracy.

Following the public comments, the OG FAC had a brief discussion about the use of chat during the committee meetings. Members expressed their interest in having the chat visible to everyone on the call so that members could indicate “I agree” or “+1”. No member disagreed with this approach. Daniel Schuman said he would talk to the GSA OG FAC support group to see how this can technically be done. He indicated that if it’s possible to do before the next meeting, then they will do it.

Closing remarks

Daniel Schuman and Arthur Brunson thanked attendees for participating. Arthur Brunson adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m. ET.

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