Fwd: FYI -- Again Re: FYI News release: Canada's very weak Open Government Plan must be rejected by OGP]

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

Some points from legal folks on the open government plan.

 

Harvey is taking a well needed break and will report once he gets back home.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Subject: FYI -- Again Re: FYI News release: Canada's very weak Open Government Plan must be rejected by OGP]
To: [hidden email]


Hello all,

FYI please see below, in order, a message from me, then below that a
message from Julie McCarthy (who coordinates the OGP Civil Society
process), then a message from Toby Mendel who is at the meeting in
Brazil, and then the message I sent yesterday.

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Board member of <http://DemocracyWatch.ca>
Director of GoodOrg.ca Consulting
<http://goodorg.ca>

***************

------------------------- Original Message -------------------------
Subject: Again Re: FYI News release: Canada's very weak Open
Government Plan must be rejected by OGP
From:    [hidden email]
Date:    Wed, April 18, 2012 11:16 am
To:      [hidden email]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello all,

Thank you for the information Toby, and for making those points at
the conference, and thank you Julie for pointing out that there is
an OGP-appointed annual independent reporting mechanism on country
commitments.

The problem Julie is that, as Toby pointed out, the commitments from
Canada (and other countries) are so weak that it will be easy for
them to keep.  No country is required to fulfill OGP's
"requirements" (and therefore they are at best guidelines or
statements of aspiration).

So the Canadian government comes out of the Brazil meeting saying
"Canada's open government action plan approved by international Open
Government Partnership" and then a year from now issues another news
release saying "Independent assessment by international Open
Government Partnership approves Canadian government's open
government actions in past year."

From what Toby reports, NGOs from many countries are being clear in
their assessment of the OGP process -- the requirements must be made
mandatory or the process will be only slightly better than useless
(and will actually hurt efforts to have key changes made in Canada
(and likely other countries) as governments use their membership in
OGP as a cover for their ongoing inaction).

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Board member of <http://DemocracyWatch.ca>
Director of GoodOrg.ca Consulting
<http://goodorg.ca>

****************

Message from Julie McCarthy:

There is an OGP independent reporting mechanism that will annually
collect feedback from civil society and other stakeholders in all
OGP countries that is intended to help promote frank dialogue around
country performance between governments and citizens. You can read
more about it on OGP's website, in the articles of governance in
particular.

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 18, 2012, at 10:48 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I was on the panel at the OGP responding to the government's
> presentation
> of its own plan. We were given only 5 minutes to speak, so in that
> very
> short time I made just three points:
>
> 1)    The Canadian consultation was unacceptably weak and could
> only have
> been deemed to meet the OGP minimum requirements on a generous
> interpretation of those requirements. Unfortunately, this point
> was
> undermined by the fact that as poor as the Canadian consultations
> were,
> many (perhaps most) other OGP countries had done even less. I did,
> however, point to some other countries which have done much better
> than
> Canada.
>
> 2)    All of the key stakeholders in Canada have called for reform
> of our FOI
> law. I highlighted the January call by all of the oversight bodies
> (information commissioners) in Canada for this, as well as the
> study by my
> own organisation, along with Access Info Europe, which ranked the
> Canadian
> law 40th out of 89 countries globally (www.RTI-Rating.org). This
> is simply
> not good enough. Instead of committing to this, the Action Plan
> promises
> only to enable electronic requests. While this is somehow welcome,
> it
> simply brings us into line with where very many other countries
> already
> are. Ie, it is a long overdue measure. The key need is significant
> overhaul of the FOI law, and this should be what the Action Plan
> promised.
>
> 3)    The majority of the commitments in the Action Plan are
> 'developmental'
> in the sense that it is not clear at this point what is being
> promised.
> For example, one of the two Foundational Commitments is to develop
> a
> Directive on Open Government. Whether this is useful depends on
> what is in
> the Directive, about which the Action Plan makes only the most
> general
> statements. What is therefore important is the follow-up or
> monitoring
> mechanism for how these commitments are delivered (I count 1 of
> the 2
> Foundational Commitments and 6 of the 10 other commitments as
> being
> developmental).
>
> I ended up saying the government has a lot more work to do to meet
> an
> acceptable level within the OGP.
>
> On Duff's points below, the OGP system does not envisage criticism
> of
> country's action plans, let alone rejection of them. This is
> probably the
> weakest link in the system, as it basically gives governments
> freedom to
> decide on their commitments. The only quality control measure here
> is the
> requirement of consultation and, as noted, that has largely failed
> so far.
> There has been a lot of criticism of this (i.e. the freedom of
> States to
> choose their own Action Plans) from civil society, but it remains
> the way
> the system works.
>
> What I think is needed is for civil society to develop some kind
> of system
> for assessing which OGP areas - of which there are four -
> transparency,
> citizen participation, professional integrity in the civil service
> and
> technology and innovation - governments have committed to and then
> to hold
> them to account for taking action in all four areas.
>
> There is a sense among participants here, and more broadly, that
> many
> governments have systematically chosen 'easy' commitments instead
> of
> agreeing to take serious and sometimes tough measures to be more
> open. In
> other words, they are taking credit for being part of this
> initiative, and
> yet not delivering in the way that is intended. A press release by
> a group
> of Indonesian organisations which I believe was circulated to this
> list,
> entitled, "OGP is Not an Adornment", which I think captures it
> neatly.
> There is a concern, in particular, that improving the quality and
> implementation of access to information rules has systematically
> been
> neglected. The Canadian Action Plan is very much along these
> lines.
>
> Toby
>
> ___________________________________
> Toby Mendel
> Executive Director
>
> Centre for Law and Democracy
> [hidden email]
> Tel:  <a href="tel:%2B1%20902%20431-3688" value="[phone]">[phone]
> Fax: <a href="tel:%2B1%20902%20431-3689" value="[phone]">[phone]
> www.law-democracy.org
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Apr 2012, at 14:00, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> FYI see set out below today's news release from Democracy Watch
> and
> the three nation-wide coalitions it coordinates about Canada's
> very
> weak Open Government Action Plan -- you can also see it at:
> <http://dwatch.ca/camp/RelsApr1712.html>.
>
> I hope those of you who are in Brazil will join the large majority
> of NGOs in Canada calling on the OGP Steering Committee to
> criticize
> Canada's inadequate Action Plan, and to reject Canada's
> involvement
> in OGP.
>
> If the Canadian government comes out of the Brazil meeting with
> any
> kind of endorsement from OGP, it will set back efforts for an
> actual
> open, ethical federal Canadian government for years as the
> government will use that endorsement again and again to cover up
> their non-action on key, much-needed changes.
>
> Hope this helps, and take care,
> Duff Conacher, Board member of <http://DemocracyWatch.ca>
> Director of GoodOrg.ca Consulting
> <http://goodorg.ca>
>
>

--

Tracey P. Lauriault
613-234-2805
 

[michael gurstein]

This is my quick and personal take on the OGP event...

 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/does-inclusion-matter-for-open-government-the-answer-is-very-much-indeed/

 

Best,

 

M

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tracey P. Lauriault
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 3:46 PM
To: civicaccess discuss
Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] Fwd: FYI -- Again Re: FYI News release: Canada's very weak Open Government Plan must be rejected by OGP]

Some points from legal folks on the open government plan.

 

Harvey is taking a well needed break and will report once he gets back home.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Subject: FYI -- Again Re: FYI News release: Canada's very weak Open Government Plan must be rejected by OGP]
To: [hidden email]


Hello all,

FYI please see below, in order, a message from me, then below that a
message from Julie McCarthy (who coordinates the OGP Civil Society
process), then a message from Toby Mendel who is at the meeting in
Brazil, and then the message I sent yesterday.

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Board member of <http://DemocracyWatch.ca>
Director of GoodOrg.ca Consulting
<http://goodorg.ca>

***************

------------------------- Original Message -------------------------
Subject: Again Re: FYI News release: Canada's very weak Open
Government Plan must be rejected by OGP
From:    [hidden email]
Date:    Wed, April 18, 2012 11:16 am
To:      [hidden email]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello all,

Thank you for the information Toby, and for making those points at
the conference, and thank you Julie for pointing out that there is
an OGP-appointed annual independent reporting mechanism on country
commitments.

The problem Julie is that, as Toby pointed out, the commitments from
Canada (and other countries) are so weak that it will be easy for
them to keep.  No country is required to fulfill OGP's
"requirements" (and therefore they are at best guidelines or
statements of aspiration).

So the Canadian government comes out of the Brazil meeting saying
"Canada's open government action plan approved by international Open
Government Partnership" and then a year from now issues another news
release saying "Independent assessment by international Open
Government Partnership approves Canadian government's open
government actions in past year."

From what Toby reports, NGOs from many countries are being clear in
their assessment of the OGP process -- the requirements must be made
mandatory or the process will be only slightly better than useless
(and will actually hurt efforts to have key changes made in Canada
(and likely other countries) as governments use their membership in
OGP as a cover for their ongoing inaction).

Hope this helps,
Duff Conacher, Board member of <http://DemocracyWatch.ca>
Director of GoodOrg.ca Consulting
<http://goodorg.ca>

****************

Message from Julie McCarthy:

There is an OGP independent reporting mechanism that will annually
collect feedback from civil society and other stakeholders in all
OGP countries that is intended to help promote frank dialogue around
country performance between governments and citizens. You can read
more about it on OGP's website, in the articles of governance in
particular.

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 18, 2012, at 10:48 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I was on the panel at the OGP responding to the government's
> presentation
> of its own plan. We were given only 5 minutes to speak, so in that
> very
> short time I made just three points:
>
> 1)    The Canadian consultation was unacceptably weak and could
> only have
> been deemed to meet the OGP minimum requirements on a generous
> interpretation of those requirements. Unfortunately, this point
> was
> undermined by the fact that as poor as the Canadian consultations
> were,
> many (perhaps most) other OGP countries had done even less. I did,
> however, point to some other countries which have done much better
> than
> Canada.
>
> 2)    All of the key stakeholders in Canada have called for reform
> of our FOI
> law. I highlighted the January call by all of the oversight bodies
> (information commissioners) in Canada for this, as well as the
> study by my
> own organisation, along with Access Info Europe, which ranked the
> Canadian
> law 40th out of 89 countries globally (www.RTI-Rating.org). This
> is simply
> not good enough. Instead of committing to this, the Action Plan
> promises
> only to enable electronic requests. While this is somehow welcome,
> it
> simply brings us into line with where very many other countries
> already
> are. Ie, it is a long overdue measure. The key need is significant
> overhaul of the FOI law, and this should be what the Action Plan
> promised.
>
> 3)    The majority of the commitments in the Action Plan are
> 'developmental'
> in the sense that it is not clear at this point what is being
> promised.
> For example, one of the two Foundational Commitments is to develop
> a
> Directive on Open Government. Whether this is useful depends on
> what is in
> the Directive, about which the Action Plan makes only the most
> general
> statements. What is therefore important is the follow-up or
> monitoring
> mechanism for how these commitments are delivered (I count 1 of
> the 2
> Foundational Commitments and 6 of the 10 other commitments as
> being
> developmental).
>
> I ended up saying the government has a lot more work to do to meet
> an
> acceptable level within the OGP.
>
> On Duff's points below, the OGP system does not envisage criticism
> of
> country's action plans, let alone rejection of them. This is
> probably the
> weakest link in the system, as it basically gives governments
> freedom to
> decide on their commitments. The only quality control measure here
> is the
> requirement of consultation and, as noted, that has largely failed
> so far.
> There has been a lot of criticism of this (i.e. the freedom of
> States to
> choose their own Action Plans) from civil society, but it remains
> the way
> the system works.
>
> What I think is needed is for civil society to develop some kind
> of system
> for assessing which OGP areas - of which there are four -
> transparency,
> citizen participation, professional integrity in the civil service
> and
> technology and innovation - governments have committed to and then
> to hold
> them to account for taking action in all four areas.
>
> There is a sense among participants here, and more broadly, that
> many
> governments have systematically chosen 'easy' commitments instead
> of
> agreeing to take serious and sometimes tough measures to be more
> open. In
> other words, they are taking credit for being part of this
> initiative, and
> yet not delivering in the way that is intended. A press release by
> a group
> of Indonesian organisations which I believe was circulated to this
> list,
> entitled, "OGP is Not an Adornment", which I think captures it
> neatly.
> There is a concern, in particular, that improving the quality and
> implementation of access to information rules has systematically
> been
> neglected. The Canadian Action Plan is very much along these
> lines.
>
> Toby
>
> ___________________________________
> Toby Mendel
> Executive Director
>
> Centre for Law and Democracy
> [hidden email]
> Tel:  <A href="tel:%2B1%20902%20431-3688" value="[phone]">[phone]
> Fax: <A href="tel:%2B1%20902%20431-3689" value="[phone]">[phone]
> www.law-democracy.org
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Apr 2012, at 14:00, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> FYI see set out below today's news release from Democracy Watch
> and
> the three nation-wide coalitions it coordinates about Canada's
> very
> weak Open Government Action Plan -- you can also see it at:
> <http://dwatch.ca/camp/RelsApr1712.html>.
>
> I hope those of you who are in Brazil will join the large majority
> of NGOs in Canada calling on the OGP Steering Committee to
> criticize
> Canada's inadequate Action Plan, and to reject Canada's
> involvement
> in OGP.
>
> If the Canadian government comes out of the Brazil meeting with
> any
> kind of endorsement from OGP, it will set back efforts for an
> actual
> open, ethical federal Canadian government for years as the
> government will use that endorsement again and again to cover up
> their non-action on key, much-needed changes.
>
> Hope this helps, and take care,
> Duff Conacher, Board member of <http://DemocracyWatch.ca>
> Director of GoodOrg.ca Consulting
> <http://goodorg.ca>
>
>

--

Tracey P. Lauriault
613-234-2805