Above: Session on Cultural and Institutional Barriers to Open Governance 

Along with about 40 others, I spent much of last week at the Aspen Institute’s Forum on Communications and Society (FOCAS.) The meeting was part of Knight Foundation’s work to support open government; the focus of our discussion was how to improve the interaction between citizens and governments.

On Friday afternoon and Saturday morning, we focused on developing a set of actionable ideas:

• The 100 Best and Worst. The idea started as “Yelp for government.” The theory is that putting a spotlight on the worst and best government offices and services will encourage improvement and reward excellence. Before leaving Aspen, Colo. Phil Ashlock built an alpha version; expect to see it soon.
• Public Experience Network. Frank Hebbert summarized the idea: The notion is to enable government workers and citizens to co-create solutions. It’s motivated by something Mark Meckler said: “Everyone’s an expert in something.”

• Open Data Institute U.S. (or, Open Data Institute America, to avoid a funny acronym.) The discussion focused on scoping a U.S. version of the U.K.-based Open Data Institute.
• Internal cohorts. How can we better support agents of change already in government? Could we invert the Code for America fellowship program, and instead of bringing in people from outside, elevate the work of government employees through mentorship, curriculum and networking? Greg Elin, co-founder of Git Machines and chief data officer at the Federal Communications Commission, emphasized that institutions other than governments could benefit from such a program.

There were several tension points throughout the discussion, many of which came out during our review of the field on Thursday. They included:

• Local/federal. Citizens engage differently with different levels of government; changing culture within local governments has different challenges than doing so at the federal level. States are a whole other bag.
• Engaged/not engaged. Citizen civic involvement is on a continuum; voting can be a proxy for engagement.
• Consumption/co-creation. Some of the products under discussion, and around the table, are dedicated to more efficiently delivering information for citizens to use. Other efforts aim to get citizens to be part of the process of building civic things.
• Insiders/outsiders. This was the theme at last month’s Civic Media conference at MIT, and of the Ignite talk I gave. We are excited about outsiders; the open gov movement comes from outside. How can we on the outside do a better job supporting those inside the government pushing openness and innovation? How can we help “create pockets of risk,” to borrow a phrase from Story Bellows, co-director of Philadelphia’s effort to stimulate innovation.
• Big/small government. We have different visions and expectations for how much government we want.

During FOCAS, we also announced a $200,000 grant to The OpenGov Foundation in support of Project Madison, open-source software that enables citizens to help their governments write and collaborate on legislation. The grant from Knight will allow OpenGov to sponsor activities to get people directly involved in issues that are important to them. It’s part of our effort to overcome the barriers that prevent people from becoming engaged in their communities.

One thing we heard throughout is that the major obstacles in government openness and innovation aren’t, fundamentally, about technology; they’re about people. As we continue to build new tools and approaches to open government, we’ll have to continue building talent and culture, too.

Most of the 2013 Forum on Communications and Society was broadcast via livestream and is archived here. Panthea Lee was there as a rapporteur, so look for a more in-depth report from her soon.

John S. Bracken, director of journalism and media innovation at Knight Foundation