On the state level improvements have been made, but there is a long way to go.

For example, when bills are sent to committees within the General Assembly, it is difficult to determine which legislators voted for and against the proposed measure.  Citizens can view whether or not the bill passed, of course, but this is not the whole story.

Committees play a pivotal role in shaping the development of legislation.  Therefore, it is essential to have easily accessible (online) records on committee activity.  How are voters supposed to evaluate their elected representatives when the actions of a particular member are blurred into the actions of a committee?

Currently, one must track down a legislative clerk for the committee and request a mailed roll call transcript of a committee hearing to find this information.  It should not be this difficult.

Citizens need information to make informed decisions, to support strong candidates, and to keep a check on government corruption and waste.    It is the state’s duty to make sure this information is accessible and accurate, perhaps committee vote records is the place to start.

Check out Illinoispolicyinstitute.org for more information.

Well, the state of Illinois can commiserate.  Out of a possible 100 points, Illinois received a “0” from the government watchdog group Good Jobs First for its stimulus transparency website.

Not surprisingly, that score gave Illinois the distinction of being the lowest ranked state.

The site, Illinois Recovery, fails to achieve the promised pledge of “an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability” Barack Obama made when passing the stimulus.  In fact, the site fails to achieve transparency on even a basic level, lacking specific information on stimulus spending for state projects.

By failing to track stimulus spending and maintain transparent records in line with national norms, Illinois has demonstrated its lack of commitment to good, open government.

Illinois is already known nationwide for government corruption and lack of transparency; this embarrassing report only furthers this negative perception.

Applying an existing customer satisfaction model, ForeSee concluded that government agencies operating with transparency enjoy higher citizen satisfaction which in turn, promotes active citizens:

“…increased transparency drives satisfaction, and citizens who are highly satisfied with a given federal website (satisfaction scores of 80 and higher on the study’s 100-point scale) are much more likely to engage in desired outcomes than less satisfied citizens (<70). Highly satisfied website visitors are:

• 49% more likely to trust the agency or department overall;
• 54% more likely to participate in communication with the agency online or offline in the future;
• 73% more likely to collaborate with the agency online in the future using interactive features such as wikis or blogs;
• 54% more likely to return to the site;
• 78% more likely to recommend the site;
• 77% more likely to use the site as a primary resource for interaction with the agency overall.”

This data underscores the importance of transparency in all levels of government.  Not only is transparency vital to the protection of public interests, but evidently can foster a more collaborative environment between government and citizen.  Policy is a two-way street and developing a more engaged citizenry ensures that legislation better fits the public’s interest.

It is essential, then, that government seeks to not only become more transparent, but to do so in an efficient, navigable manner.

Be sure to check out the transparency section of the Illinois Policy Institute for further information on the subject.

Bill Dwyer discusses two proposed bills that would help the government work around the Open Meetings Act and reverse a positive trend towards openness in our government.

Fortunately, both of the bills were killed in committee, yet Dwyer sought to figure out why the bills were proposed in the first place and who stood to gain from their passage.

Not surprisingly, he learned the bill got moving because of the work of a couple well-established lobbyists.

Lobbyists fill an important role in American democracy by contributing information and representing constituents or organizations who otherwise may not feel represented.  Yet, because of this position, many lobbyists enjoy considerable influence over the direction of policy, and some use their position and influence unethically to produce favorable outcomes (see: Jack Abramoff).

Because of this, Dwyer argues that government transparency should include all actors involved with creating and passing legislation.  In order to have an adequate understanding of a piece of legislation, the public needs to know what the bill is, where it came from, and who got it there.  When we only concern ourselves with the actions of lawmakers, we miss a big part of the puzzle.

Transparency for politicians is a great first step, but corruption and misinformation in Springfield cannot be curbed without an accurate understanding of the behind-the-scenes work.  As Dwyer points out:

“I don’t care a whit that there are lobbyists working to get a given bill passed…I care that no one outside a select few who spend the majority of their time in Springfield know any of the details about it. I want the rest of us…to know the general details of what they’re doing, to have access to the sort of information that would allow us to knowledgeably check up on people—both the elected and non-elected. That would constitute a huge step toward genuine open government.”

These municipalities should be commended in leading the charge for innovative problem solving. By using these new communication platforms, municipal governments are not only creating a richer dialogue between residents and government but also opening up new possibilities for openness and reform.

According to the article, the majority of messages conveyed to residents cover the latest local happenings, including road closures, special events, and in one case, the finding of a local missing person. As society becomes increasingly mobile, it becomes increasingly important for all levels of government to take forward-thinking steps and find new, better ways to communicate and provide information.

Similarly, a project of the Illinois Policy Institute, called TweetIllinois.org, uses this same communications platform and enables state politicians to post messages to their constituents. Perhaps the leaders of these towns will take their communications to the next level and use the Twitter platform to update constituents on government actions and decisions.

This is a terrific step in the right direction, let’s keep the ball moving!

This is not a familiar concept in Chicago architecturally or otherwise.

In addition to the Sears Tower, the Windy City is known nationwide for less favorable attributes, namely corruption and an underhanded political culture. We are “the city that works” – although how, nobody is exactly sure.

Getting a clear look at Chicago politics used to be about as difficult as getting a clear look at the city itself, until now. It turns out the new glass boxes reaching 1,353 feet up in the air have attracted considerable interest.  Chicagoans apparently like the idea of transparency and for $14.95 it’s a deal. Let’s see if we can carry this interest to City Hall and statewide because, after all, we’re paying a lot more than that for a government as opaque as they come.

Hoffman, concerned by the apparent privacy with which Mayor Daley and the Chicago 2016 Committee are operating, urged a new direction, one that opens the planning to the input of city aldermen, if not the people themselves.

So far Daley and his committee have been operating behind closed doors, lifting the curtain of secrecy only to reveal a jumbled message about Chicago’s eventual financial liabilities for the the games.  It is this exact ambiguity, which Hoffman warns, could damage both our reputations and pocketbooks down the road.

Hosting the Olympics draws an enormous amount of attention on the hosting city, as we saw with Beijing.  If Chicago is chosen to host the Olympic, all eyes fall on us.  Hoffman’s call, then, is of vital importance.