Australia is definitely in the lead as far as a Government 2.0 strategy is concerned. The Netherlands may have a lack of policy, but there is a lot of activity. Both countries face the challenge of implementing cross organisational collaboration. Because of its size, Australia may find it harder to reach consensus about implementation.

On invitation by FutureGovMagazine, I attended as an international guest speaker this conference held 26-27 July at the National Convention Centre in Canberra. The format was different from traditional conferences. Apart from three plenary speeches and two panel discussions, there where 12 round tables where delegates rotated every 40 minutes. The topics on the tables covered the whole range of technical and organizational matters in ICT and the public sector, from cloud computing to Gov2.0. I was asked to be international discussion leader for the table on Citizen Service Delivery. Participants were senior civil servants in Australian federal and state government.

Peter Harper, head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics gave the kick off with a strong plea for open government data, which means that these should be available, accessible and freely shared. Since the fixed cost of collecting the data is already paid for during the original process, the price of data depends on the marginal costs for distributing. In the internet age these are negligible. However, serious barriers do exist because data should be readable and understandable, and metadata has to be added. Moreover agencies that depend on selling data for their budget will experience a loss of revenue. Nevertheless there are sizeable economic and social benefits to be gained. It opens the way for pyramidisation, visploration and mashups of data.

The second plenary speaker was Nicholas Gruen, chairman of the Government 2.0 Taskforce, which presented last year a strategy that is widely acclaimed to be the world’s best. The basic assumption about open data is that you can’t imagine the difference between the reason for collecting data and the use that can be made of it. He gave examples of API’s developed on the basis of released data on public transport. The game changer is the idea that is behind the old suggestion box. For any organisation, the best minds are outside, so provide opportunities for engagement and feedback. This means that government should strictly act as a wholesaler of data, not as a retailer of information. As far as government blogging is concerned, the code of conduct for Australian civil servants advises that the focus should be on the area in between official and private conversation, i.e. professional views.

Ann Stewart, Australia’s CIO, whom I recently met at de WCIT2010 in Amsterdam, was the third speaker. Just last week the Australian government adopted the proposals of the taskforce and presented a Declaration of Open Government with three key principles: informing, engaging and participating. It urges agencies to develop an “action agenda” not only for themselves, but for collaboration with other agencies on common service areas and the Australian public. Public sector information (PSI) is central to public sector reform. A number of lead agencies are going to take responsibility for specific projects to overcome individual jurisdictions. When she asked the audience who was already involved in social media, just a small number of fingers were raised (including mine). Her reaction: civil servants should become “activists”.

My brief introduction at the round table sessions focussed on the 3-step Citizenlink approach for citizen centricity: standardising quality requirements, measuring customer satisfaction and promoting citizen engagement. Web 2.0 creates a whole new set of opportunities to practice this. The Netherlands and Australia having a population which is roughly comparable in numbers, but a surface that is certainly not in size (Australia being a continent rather than a country), creates a quite different environment. The general feeling of the Australian participants was that this makes collaboration between tiers of government harder to reach than in a relatively more compact society as the Netherlands. Just one example: Australia has 8 state car licence jurisdictions, a single federal licence plate is not foreseeable in the near future.

The panel on European Perspectives was composed of Austria’s CIO Reinhard Posch, Glyn Evans of the Birmingham City Council and myself. In reply to the question whether Europe, with the exception of UK, lags behind in PSI, I answered that it might look indeed as if less priority is given to open data. However that does not mean that nothing happens, on the contrary. First there is a long standing policy for creating basic registers in order to share government data. Unfortunately in their present form most are no reusable, for they don’t meet the requirements that Peter Harper stipulated. So that will take time. Not surprisingly many examples of reused data are in the field of public transport, parking reservations and the like, which are not the core business of government. But more importantly, whereas the Australian strategy seems to advocate releasing data and then “wait and see what happens”, in the Netherlands there is more focus on using the opportunities of Web 2.0 in the actual redesigning of public services. I gave examples of collecting data (e.g. feedback on public services), harmonising data (voting on decisions of city councils) and distributing data (performance and quality comparisons) to that end. So there might be a lack of policy, but there is a lot of activity.
The possibilities to create conditions for cross government collaboration differ in Australia and Europe. As a federal state, Australia has integration mechanisms which European Union lacks. On the other hand, European integration policy and law helps to set standards, such as the interoperability framewordk and the mandatory Service Directive.

The advantage of the conference’s format is a more personal conversation and interaction. At the same time it was challenging for the speakers to adapt their story to the different interest of 12 rotations. The groups of participants got to know one another so well that the second day I asked them to introduce a colleague in stead of themselves. It was a well organised event with high level participation, the sharing of knowledge and the awareness it created surely very helpful for Australian public sector reform.

Several of my fellow speakers I met on conferences before. During the speakers dinner I got to talk with Gerrit Bahlman, who was born in Rotterdam and emigrated to New Zealand at the age of 13. Presently he works as Director of Information Technology at the HongKong University. He and others are highly impressed by the rapid economic developments in the Asian and Pacific region, and at the same time wonder whether Europe and the US can adapt their societies in order to catch up.

Australia is due for general elections next August. There was quite some coverage in the press. But on television there was just one debate between the contenders for prime minister: Labour’s Julia Gillard and the Liberals’ Tony Abbott. Only journalists were present to ask questions, no audience. Quite different form the latest general elections in the Netherlands, with a preceding two week’s period of lively debates, daily polling and heavy use of social media.

Travel from Europe to Australia generally takes one and a half day. As there is no direct connection between Amsterdam and Canberra, the first leg in Europe is flying to Paris or London. As place of arrival in Australia one can choose any one of the larger cities: Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. For a change a took the express train from Amsterdam to Frankfurt to board the plane to Singapore, with a connecting intercontinental flight to Brisbane. There I made a stopover to get rid of my jet lag and to visit the Great Barrier Reef. Was a very interesting trip by propeller plane and glass bottom boat, followed by snorkelling around a coral clay and swimming with turtles.

Matt Poelmans, July 30th

Sinds vorige maand ben ik bewonersvertegenwoordiger namens Oegstgeest in het Schipholoverleg CROS, als opvolger van Frank Wilod Versprille. Eerder heb ik mij ingezet voor beperking van vliegtuigoverlast, als gemeenteraadslid en als statenlid voor D66. Ook ben ik betrokken bij de meetinstelling Geluidsnet, het Oegstgeester Burgerinitiatief Schiphol en het burgernetwerk OegstgeestZietZeVliegen. Als CROS-lid wil ik mij met name inzetten voor merkbare hinderbeperking en voor betere communicatie met inwoners.

1. The gap will always remain, but become more narrow

All major innovations have profoundly influenced society. In what way and to what effect precisely is not always known. The advocates tend to stress the chances, the critics always warn against the risks. ICT being the innovation of our time, raises a similar debate. Some people hail it as the solution to all problems, others argue that it destroys society as we know it.

What are the lessons learnt from earlier innovations? When the printing press was invented, it democratised knowledge, for more people got access to knowledge. But there must have been critics who have argued that it deepenend the already existing gap between educated and illiterate people. Even though it shifted the power structure, fortunately no one advocated abolishing the machine. It has laid the foundation for general education which has raised the general level of knowledge in society.

After the printing press the stream engine undoubtedly has stimulated a similar debate. (In)famous agreement at the time between the church priest and the factory owner was: if you keep them stupid, I will keep them poor. In the 20th century the telephone, the radio, and TV have been hotly discussed for their positive and negative influences.

eGovernment as the current innovation can be seen as a strong driver for improvement of the public sector. Some fear that it widens the gap between the haves and havenots. But looking at the earlier innovations, one can safely say that given time all will benefit. But a (somewhat narrower) gap will always remain.

2. eGovernment by any other name should promise the same

Many people consider the word eGovernment to be misleading, because it stresses the means and not the end. But that is only true when that end would be making everything digital that previously was done on paper, and nothing more. Since that would be too modest an ambition, new words have been coined to describe what eGovernment actually means: Transformational Government, Open Government, and recently Government 2.0. However, this is just semantics, the epitome “2000” used in the 1990′s for everything new having been succeeded by “2.0”. So what’s eGovernment really about?

Many answers remain in the field of means: reducing administrative burdens, enhancing efficiency, improving transparency, increasing participation, doing away with bureaucracy. The latter certainly is intriguing. There has been a time when bureaucracy was a positive innovation! As described by Weber it did away with the essence of bad government. Its positive connotation was that it made government predictable, as opposed to former times when citizens were at the mercy of their rulers.

So what precisely is the promise of eGovernment? Looking at the tendencies and challenges in society, the challenge for government is to adapt to future bottom up and horizontal approaches as opposed to present top down and vertical procedures. The “e” describes the phenomenon that access to information and lower production costs will bring about a revolution in the relationship between government and civil society. Government on demand? One may call it Government 2.0, but by any other name, eGovernment should promise the same.

3. eSociety requires a dramatic change in eGovernment leadership

In almost every country take up of eGovernment lags behind expectations. An obvious remedy is to better inform the general public about the availability of eServices or the possibilities of eDemocracy. However, this is not likely to solve the problem. In order to bridge the gap between supply and demand in the field of public service delivery and between apathy and involvement in the area of political decision making, a fundamental change in the “production process” is required.

Successful businesses have “reversed” the traditional way of designing a product or service by turning formerly passive consumers into present day active prosumers. What works for commercial services might well be an example for renewal of public services. This doesn’t mean privatising public service delivery, but rather facilitating involvement of the public customer in the design of the solution to his needs and the creation of the suitable service. In political decision making this means giving more choice for involvement outside the existing representative mechanisms.

Politics as we know it still tries to manage in a vertical and hierarchical way a society that has changed dramatically. It can’t cope any more with the horizontal and networking way of dealing that has become normal for citizens and businesses. eSociety requires a “production process” for creation and distribution of public values that is better adapted to both the needs and the possibilities of the eCitizen.

In order to bring this shift about, a different kind of leadership in eGovernment is required. We need politicians and civil servants who are aware of the challenges of change and risks of stagnation. They should act like Baron Von Munchhausen, who saved himself out of the swamp by pulling himself (and his horse) upwards by his own hair. Although some will argue that fairy tales are not real, virtual stories can come true! Who will write this eStory with the Happy End?

4. Will Greece lead the way again?

Some 2500 years ago the Greek invented democracy as a system to run society in the best interest of all its members. Their innovation, combined with the subsequent Roman interpretation, became the basis for democracy as we know it.

Over time the focus shifted from direct to representative democracy, the assumption being that not everyone is able or willing to take part in political debate or decision making. Because of this, politics became a profession and politicians an elite, thus creating a gap between the representatives and those represented. Elections have not really diminished this.
But are these assumptions still valid? Obviously direct democracy in its pure form does not work with large numbers and great distances. And the mitigating effects of representative mechanisms should also be taken into account.

Nevertheless present day Knowledge Society has created a new playing field, for at least two reasons. Citizens are better educated and certainly do have opinions how society should be managed. Moreover Web 2.0 gives new opportunities for citizen involvement that can be innovative and rewarding.

The actual worldwide economic crises makes a truly revolutionary approach to democracy both necessary and possible. A country like Greece is hit very hard by this crisis and faces the challenge to adapt to completely new circumstances. Ordinary politics won’t solve that problem. Trust and transparency are necessary to reach political agreement about austerity measures that have to be taken. More than ever a fair way to share the burden is required. Only when every one is included, can Greece (and other countries) overcome their predicament.

Many Greeks feel doomed and are pessimistic about their future. They tend to view their situation in terms of a classical Greek Tragedy Revisited. But reverting to business as usual is not an option in politics. A truly revolutionary approach to running government is the only way out. Can Greece become again the craddle, this time for Democracy 2.0?

(Published in the Virtual Space of the eGovernment Track at WCIT2010)

Recent surveys by the Dutch CFES (Centre for e-Government Studies) about progress in e-government show a wide gap between the availability and the actual use of e-services. Even though the number of e-services increases over time and broadband penetration grows, take up does not accordingly. There remains an unused potential of about 50%. International comparisons show that all countries face this problem. Actually in the top ranking countries in e-government this very gap is even wider.
Although there are indications that getting used to e-services may induce more people to use them, one cannot assume that this will eventually bridge the gap. Real take up will be dependent on a different approach, i.e. the introduction so called user driven services. Burgerlink (Citizenlink) is an example how this done in the Netherlands. It advocates an integrated 3 step approach for standardization of quality requirements, measurement of customer satisfaction and stimulating of citizen engagement.

Anyone living in The Netherlands is being served by many more authorities than he or she is aware of. Even though an inhabitant may only infrequently visit the town hall or the city website, that person is dependent on all kinds of authorities for living, care, education, transportation, safety and so on. The same holds for business or civic organizations.

Fortunately each government agency is enthusiastically busy improving its service delivery process. They may perform better, but as yet a breakthrough has not come about. The reason being that they usually operate separately, mostly supply driven and seldom customer centred. In order to remedy this situation, a common vision and a concerted action is necessary in three areas: quality requirements, satisfaction measurement and citizen involvement

First government agencies should apply common service quality requirements. Not only because a citizen is entitled to an identical level from all agencies serving the general public, but also since it is a prerequisite for intergovernmental cooperation. That’s why the e-Citizen Charter has been conceived as a common standard that from the citizen’s perspective summarizes 10 basic principles. These cover all kinds roles and address information provision, service delivery and citizen participation. Individual government agencies can convert these into specific departmental quality norms.

Secondly government agencies should practice satisfaction measurement. In order to ascertain whether citizens actually profit from all changes, satisfaction measurement should not be restricted to separate products or services. So a national survey is conducted about citizen satisfaction on the basis of life events, taking into account the e-Citizen Charter criteria. The results of the survey show that the necessary chain cooperation is lacking in the field of coordination, communication and treatment. Chain partners can use the data from the annual survey for business process redesign.

Finally improvement of public service delivery can only come about when citizen involvement is embedded. In stead of consulting citizens when and where government deems fit, it is much more rewarding if forums for interaction are created that stimulate and facilitate open discussion. Web 2.0 (social media, open data, co creation) supports e-participation that contributes to business process redesign. In order to satisfy both government and citizen, this should be part and parcel of everyday operations. At present e-participation is still in its infancy, but there are promising examples.

Modern government should be prepared for empowered citizens. The ABC for improved government is: Always Burger Centric. A successful performance incentive for better government requires that politicians and managers implement this triple approach.

Overheden zijn zelf verantwoordelijk voor de kwaliteit van hun eigen dienstverlening, maar samen zijn ze dat voor het geheel. Burgerlink helpt overheden op innovatieve wijze hun aanbod beter af te stemmen op de vraag van burgers. De verbindende schakel is de BurgerServiceCode, die de verbetering van de overheid vanuit het burgerperspectief verwoordt.

De Nederlander heeft met veel meer overheden te maken dan hij weet. Hij mag dan weinig aan de balie of op de website van zijn gemeente komen, voor wonen, zorg, onderwijs, vervoer, veiligheid, enz. is hij aangewezen op publieke dienstverlening door vele overheden. Hetzelfde geldt voor bedrijven en maatschappelijke instellingen die met de overheid van doen hebben.

Gelukkig zijn al deze overheidsorganisaties enthousiast bezig met het verbeteren van hun dienstverlening. Ze bereiken resultaten, maar een doorbraak is nog uitgebleven. Dat komt omdat ze dit allemaal nog veelal apart doen, meestal vanuit hun eigen aanbod en zelden met structurele inbreng van hun klanten. Om dit te veranderen is gezamenlijke visie en actie van de gehele overheid nodig op drie gebieden: kwaliteitsnormen, klanttevredenheid en burgerbetrokkenheid.

Allereerst moeten overheden gemeenschappelijke kwaliteitsnormen toepassen. Niet alleen heeft de burger recht op een vergelijkbare kwaliteit bij de hele overheid, om onderlinge afspraken te kunnen maken is een gezamenlijke standaard nodig. Daartoe is de BurgerServiceCode opgesteld, die vanuit het burgerperspectief 10 algemene kwaliteitsnormen formuleert. Die gaan over de burger in verschillende rollen en slaan op informatievoorziening, dienstverlening en burgerschap. Overheden kunnen die algemene normen vervolgens per organisatie of dienst concreet maken in een kwaliteitshandvest.

Vervolgens moeten overheden klanttevredenheid meten. Om vast te stellen wat de burger merkt van alle inspanningen, moet zo’n tevredenheidsmeting niet beperkt blijven tot levering van producten en diensten. Vandaar dat landelijk onderzoek wordt gedaan naar het oordeel over de afhandeling van levensgebeurtenissen. Dat wijst uit dat het bij de noodzakelijke ketensamenwerking in veel gevallen schort aan communicatie, samenwerking en bejegening. Ketenpartners kunnen de schat aan informatie uit het jaarlijkse onderzoek over wat en hoe het beter kan gebruiken voor procesoptimalisatie.

Ten slotte lukt verbetering van publieke dienstverlening alleen door het inbedden van burgerbetrokkenheid. In plaats van burgers op traditionele wijze te betrekken (op initiatief en onder voorwaarden van de overheid toe te laten bij bestaande processen) is het beter fora in te richten om interactie te stimuleren en faciliteren. Web 2.0 (sociale netwerken, open data, co-creatie) maakt nieuwe vormen van (e)participatie mogelijk die bijdragen aan inzichten procesherontwerp. Om wederzijds lonend te zijn moet dit structureel verankerd worden in de bedrjjfsvoering.

Een moderne overheid is op mondige burgers voorbereid. Het ABC van publieke dienstverlening 2.0 is: Altijd Burger Centraal. Een echte kwaliteitsimpuls voor een beter presterende overheid vereist dat bestuurders en managers van alle overheidsorganisaties deze drieslag plannen, uitvoeren en verantwoorden.

Interview about Europe 2.0 in Singapore for FutureGov TV

Volgens Laurens Lapré in een artikel op NU.nl leidt de nadruk in Nederland op klantgerichtheid bij de eOverheid tot minder resultaten voor de burger. Andere landen die meer aandacht geven aan de interne bedrijfsvoering zouden daardoor voorop lopen. Een schijntegenstelling zoals we weten uit het verleden.

Om te beginnen, was het maar waar dat de Nederlandse digitale dienstverlening klantgericht is. Net als in veel andere landen ligt ook bij ons de nadruk op lastenvermindering en efficiencyverhoging. Ook het NUP, dat prioriteiten stelt voor de ontwikkeling van de eOverheid, richt zich voornamelijk op basisregistraties, vereenvoudiging en besparing in de backoffice. Eigenlijk wordt Lapré op zijn wenken bediend.

Het is trouwens maar de vraag of andere landen die voorrang geven aan de bedrijfsvoering daardoor voorlopen, zoals hij beweert. Want hoe meet je dat? In de eerste plaats is de definitie van eOverheid niet eenduidig. Gaat het om ICT-projecten en wat verstaat men daaronder? Bovendien is de elektronische overheid een middel en geen doel. Voor zover het al mogelijk is de voortgang van de eOverheid te meten, gebeurt dat vooral door het aanbod van digitale diensten te volgen. Maar dat soort ranglijsten zegt niets over het gebruik, laat staan over tevredenheid. Bij het gebruik blijkt trouwens dat men overal kampt met achterblijvende “awareness and take up”.

Nederland is wel het enige land dat systematisch burgertevredenheid meet op basis van feitelijke ervaringen van burgers met overheidsdienstverlening. Zoals te verwachten valt, blijkt er nog veel te verbeteren. Belemmeringen zitten in gebrek aan communicatie, ontbrekende samenwerking en tekortschietende bejegening. Helaas is er geen vergelijkbaar onderzoek uit het buitenland, zodat we niet weten of Belgen of Scandinaviërs tevredener zijn over de dienstverlening van hun overheid.

Klantgerichtheid blijft nodig als externe prikkel om het interne verbeterproces te sturen en te versnellen. De vraag of het loket of het kantoor de nadruk moet krijgen is ook een schijntegenstelling. Die is immers zo oud als Overheidsloket 2000, het programma dat 15 jaar geleden begon met aandacht voor de één-loketgedachte. Het motto toen was: denken en werken vanuit de burger. Ook toen zeiden anderen dat je in de etalage alleen kan laten zien wat in de fabriek is gemaakt. Klopt, maar als je in de fabriek niet maakt wat de klanten willen, blijft je zitten met de winkeldochters. Welke aanpak je ook kiest, het doel is hetzelfde.

Anders dan Lapré wil moeten de digitale overheid de burger vooral niet vergeten, maar juist centraal stellen. Of liever, geef die burger de kans zichzelf centraal te stellen, want dat is wat Overheid 2.0 onderscheidt van eOverheid.

Onder de titel “Waarom Burgerparticipatie 2.0 niet gaat lukken” beschrijft George Vlug eigenlijk vooral hoe het wel kan. Maar de condities die hij noemt zijn niet de enige. Juist inbedding in de werkwijze van de overheid is voorwaarde voor succes.

De kop van het artikel van George Vlug dekt de lading niet, want zijn betoog bewijs juist dat het wel kan lukken. De schrijver heeft namelijk ongelijk met zijn bewering: “Burgerparticipatie 2.0 gaat over één ding, namelijk de burger betrekken bij overheidszaken”. Burgerlink, een programma dat eParticipatie bevordert, hanteert juist als definitie: “Het betrekken van burgers bij verbetering van publieke dienstverlening, openbaar bestuur en sociale samenhang”. Dat is bewust breder dan “overheidszaken”. Niet voor niets kent de Burgerlink eParticipatie Award twee categorieën genomineerden en winnaars: behalve voor initiatieven vanuit de overheid, ook voor initiatieven vanuit de samenleving.

Maar terecht stelt hij vragen over participatie: wil de overheid het wel en zit de burger erop te wachten? Het eerste antwoord is dat dè burger en ook dè overheid niet bestaat. Maar gelukkig zijn er burgers die het willen en overheden die ervoor open staan. Beiden komen echter pas echt in beweging als er aan ieders kant een perceptie is van belang.

De condities die de schrijver noemt zijn noodzakelijke, maar niet voldoende voorwaarden. Er ontbreekt een esssentiele eis. Doorslaggevend voor het succes is namelijk inpassing van burgerparticipatie in bestaande overheidsprocessen of aanpassing daarvan.

Het model voor Burgerparticipatie 2.0 veronderstelt derhalve niet alleen een (extern) platform, maar ook een inbedding in de bestaande werkwijzen. Een goed voorbeeld is een van de winnaars van de eParticipatie Award 2009, namelijk www.verbeterdebuurt.nl Naast de Gemeentelijke klachtenlijn (die de burger niet kent of niet vertrouwt), biedt een onafhankelijke website een laagdrempelige toegang voor klachten of suggesties van burgers en een extra kanaal voor de overheid. Maar van belang is dat de gemeente deze meldingen ook verwerkt. In dit geval hebben ruim de helft van de gemeenten dit toegezegd.

Gelukkig constateert de schrijver zelf dat er her en der allerlei goede projecten zijn te ontdekken. Een goed overzicht is te vinden in de Burgerlink eParticipatiemonitor. We zullen dus nog wel moeten experimenteren om een goede formule te vinden. Met die burgerparticipatie 2.0 gaat het daarom best lukken!

Verkiezingen zijn er niet alleen voor om een nieuwe gemeenteraad te kiezen, maar evenzeer om partijen af te rekenen op wat ze hebben gedaan of nagelaten. Daarom moeten stemhulpen niet alleen informatie bevatten over beloftes voor de toekomst, maar ook over keuzes uit het verleden. Om dat laatste mogelijk te maken heeft Burgerlink juist deze week de vernieuwde website www.watstemtmijnraad.nl gelanceerd.

Volgens een artikel van hoogleraar Michiel S. de Vries in Trouw van 18 februari 2010 voldoen Kieskompas en Stemwijzer niet aan eisen voor goede advisering. Er zou inhoudelijk het nodige mis zijn met de twee stemhulpen voor de gemeenteraadsverkiezingen: “Beide gaan namelijk alleen uit van wat partijen zeggen dat ze gaan doen”. Volgens de schrijver is het “een omissie dat geen vragen zijn opgenomen over onderwerpen die in de afgelopen tijd in de gemeenteraden zijn behandeld” want men moet kunnen nagaan “of partijen hun verkiezingsbeloftes van vier jaar geleden zijn nagekomen”.

Het is volkomen terecht dat burgers bij verkiezingen niet alleen moeten afgaan op wat partijen voor de toekomst beloven, maar zich ook moeten kunnen baseren op informatie over ingenomen standpunten in het verleden. Of de makers van Kieskompas en Stemwijzer er zich te gemakkelijk vanaf hebben gemaakt, zoals schrijver beweert, valt echter te bezien. De informatie die hij mist is namelijk niet systematisch voorhanden of heel lastig te verzamelen. Doordat 431 gemeenten ieder op hun eigen manier en veelal op ouderwetse wijze stemmingen over raadsbesluiten vastleggen, is niet zomaar te achterhalen welke keuze een partij (laat staan een politicus) over een bepaald onderwerp heeft gemaakt.

Toevallig op dezelfde dag dat dit artikel verscheen, lanceerde staatssecretaris Bijleveld echter een instrument dit dit euvel gaat verhelpen. De door Burgerlink beheerde website www.watstemtmijnraad.nl biedt geïnteresseerden per gemeente een doorlopend overzicht van alle gehouden stemmingen en de standpunten daarover van raadsfracties en individuele politici. Op dit moment doen ca. 20 gemeenten mee en draaien er nog eens 20 op proef. De gegevens zijn beschikbaar in open data formaat en daarmee in allerlei situaties bruikbaar. Zo kunnen ze worden gekoppeld aan het Raadsinformatiesysteem. Iedere gemeente kan dit instrument kosteloos inzetten en hoeft niet zelf het wiel uit te vinden. Hoe het werkt is te zien op deze “explanimatie”

Kortom, als alle gemeenten meewerken, kan er de volgende keer overal een stemwijzer of kieskompas met terugwerkende kracht zijn. Een mooi eerste besluit voor alle aanstaande gemeenteraden die hun kiezers serieus nemen! Burgers die niet willen afwachten tot hun raad het initiatief neemt, kunnen dit aan de orde stellen via het andere instrument dat de staatssecretaris tegelijkertijd op 18 februari lanceerde: de vernieuwde website www.petities.nl
Overigens is een kompas of wijzer ook niet meer dan het zegt, namelijk een hulpmiddel om je koers te bepalen. Het al dan niet gehoor geven aan de oproep van de schrijver in Trouw (“Vaar op 3 maart liever op je eigen kompas”) moet iedere burger zelf bepalen!

Meer over WatStemtMijnRaad

Civil servants in The Netherlands are encouraged to actively participate in present day social media. Rules and Regulations online do not differ from those offline. In case of doubt they are to consult their colleagues or boss.

This summarises a recent draft opinion of the Dutch Council of Government Communication Officers (GCCO). From a body like this, it is a surprisingly liberal position, for allowing active online engagement means losing control. Nevetheless it is rightly argued that exploring knowledge, ideas and experience from outside provides a rich source of information for government policy. Moreover adapting to views and sentiments in civil society is necessary to arrive at policies that will be accepted.

The CGCO opinion formulates 7 reasons to engage as well as 4 guidelines to be taken into account. The 7 reasons for engagement are in brief: direct contact with stakeholders, reaching new interest groups, discovering emerging trends, improving creativity, intervention by feeding in official information, creating support by explanation of policy and using the wisdom of the crowds.

The 4 guidlines to be taken into account are in summary the following. First, as a government representative you are supposed to behave like a civil servant should (being impartial, trustworthy, careful). Second, existing rights and obligations apply, so the freedom of speech allows criticism, but is limited in case you disagree on topics close to your own field of competence. When engaging, civil servants should stick to the civil service code of conduct. Third, make a distinction between private and public (personal views and official policy), even though this is not easy. No prior consent is needed. However, in case of conflict the minister decides. Fourth is awareness and preparation, which means a deliberate choice whether or not to engage, taking people serious and archiving posts.

Both the reasons to participate and the constraints are not new, but together they present a strong case for active participation. Drafted for the national level, the guidelines can also apply to other levels of government. Much is left to the discretion of individuals and organisations. So lets explore one example.

Twitter and Burgerlink
One of the social media which merits special attention is Twitter. The advantages are clear (fast, concise, widespread communication), but at the same time nobody knows yet what the risks are. That’s why Burgerlink advocates a consensus approach. This means that the persons involved agree upon a set of principles and promise to give one anothter feedback. These principles are:

A. Twitter is one channel amongst others (i.e. press release, website, blog, RSS, LinkedIn, etc.) so make a deliberate choice which channel or combination to use

B. Make a diference bewteen an organizational and a personal account, and make sure which one you use

C. Tweets can fall within one of four domains (the boundaries between which are not strict):
– person (family, hobby): everthing allowed what a person himself or herself feels fit, but beware of the consequences;
– function (work): tweet about your own work, not that of colleagues;
– department (colleagues): when mentioning namens or describing situations, make sure to know how others feel about that;
– organization: corporate identity is the sum of all individual identities, but management has a special reponsibility to guard the outcome

Quoted in: FutureGovNet

Dutch version published in: Digitaal Bestuur