Difference between revisions of "The Open Lobby"

The goal of this project is to establish an active community, organized around two projects:

• Project: Knowledge: Developing information resources for Oregonians, on the workings of our government and other aspects of society;
• Project: Influence: Using a consensus-based process to develop policy proposals, which can then be taken up by the legislature, ballot initiative, etc.

Using modern internet-based technology will be a core aspect of the project, but not to the exclusion of in-person meetings and projects. Accessibility and transparency are the core values, and we will not require people to use an unfamiliar Internet-based tool in order to participate.

Background and general goals

In America's formative days, communication technology as we know it today was nonexistent. A major news story might take days to reach the general public, and active, ongoing communication among large and dispersed groups was utterly impossible.

Actively-engaged citizens were considered essential to the success of our young nation. In light of the technological limitations of the time, representative democracy – in which elected leaders represent their constituents' desires in policy making – was the best available option.

But today, the infrastructure of our world-famous democracy is outdated and crumbling. Many citizens are disengaged – a state often mistaken for apathy – and the ability to influence lawmaking is something we read about in civics texts, more than we experience it in daily life. The devastating consequences of this sad state of affairs are all around us.

The deliberative and negotiation processes that lead to lawmaking have become enormously complex, and lack in transparency. Even today, the public is not aware of who met with Dick Cheney to craft the Bush administration's energy policy, nor do we typically know what developers or out-of-state business lobbyists are bending our City Commissioners' ears. To get a basic understanding of a law (either an existing one, or a proposed draft) virtually requires a law degree, not to mention copious free time. The idea that we are all able to shape the laws that govern us is true in only the most technical sense.

Today, modern communication technologies have altered our daily lives significantly: the telegraph, telephone, radio, television, email, and now wikis, blogs, and extensive online databases.

But the more technology we have at our disposal, it seems, the more complex and uninviting our government becomes. A recent example: an unelected staff worker of U.S. Senator Arlen Specter inserted language into the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization without, apparently, the knowledge of his boss or anybody else in that body. To anyone familiar with word processors and the "track changes" feature, such a gaffe is almost inconceivable. And outside of government, collaboration and collective decision-making are thriving as never before.

Of course, government tries to adapt to modern technology, but the results range from the embarrassing to the criminal: electronic voting machines that "count" votes according to the whims of their programmers, web sites full of unsearchable PDFs, the need to visit four separate web sites to find information that should be linked together.

Directly changing government to adapt to modern technology would be an enormous project. Thankfully, it is also an unnecessary one. As flawed as it is, our government is designed to respond, on some level, to the will of the people. If we can design and use a system that allows us to develop broad and strong consensus around policy changes, and can communicate our wishes effectively to existing government bodies, they will respond.

It's what advocacy organizations have been doing from the beginning; but we can do it better. Building a solid foundation, and holding transparency and accessibility as core values, we can begin to assess our collective will. We can educate ourselves and our neighbors about important issues, and make good and relevant decisions about how they should be addressed.

We have voices, typing fingers, hearts, and minds. We have friends and contacts, and we are capable of negotiating with adversaries. We also have access to some truly incredible technology.

We can reclaim our democracy. If we don't want it to disappear, we must.

Wiki successes

Systems that are based on new technology – specifically, wiki-based systems – have proven successful beyond expectation.

Wikipedia, an encyclopedia built entirely by volunteers, has yielded some excellent articles. Articles on topics that are deeply controversial, where one might reasonably expect passionate disagreement to prevent meaningful consensus, are often quite good. This results from people talking through the controversial issues, and reaching a consensus on a neutral description that informs the reader, while remaining compatible with various points of view.

But Wikipedia is one example of many. New Zealand set up a wiki-based web site to capture the public's views on what a new Policing Act might look like; by all reports (see "New Zealand Launches Wiki To Help Citizens Draft New Law" and "Police wiki lets you write the law"), it yielded innovative ideas, and was a resounding success.

Please see Wiki success stories for specific examples of how various groups have used wiki-based sites to refine information and/or to be more effective and productive.

Project

The project envisioned will involve two distinct components

• developing objective, factual, and analytical information about how government and society currently operates. (Platform: wiki, database web site, in-person meetings)
• developing policy proposals

It may be best to focus on the first component, first; but both components will be ongoing. (Platform: wiki, Consensus Polling, in-person meetings)

Project: Knowledge

Factual information on how our society operates is vital to any citizen seeking meaningful interaction with a democratic government. How is Oregon's tax system structured, and how do we compare to other states? Who makes decisions about public school curriculum?

Many advocacy organizations work hard to track this sort of information, but the fruits of their research is often not available to the public. When it is, an organization's conflict of interest – whether apparent or real – might call any information it publishes into question. Or, it may not be written to be accessible to a wide audience, requiring specialized knowledge or training.

The rapid growth of Wikipedia shows the power of a large community, organized around a simple principle (like writing an encyclopedia), to develop a vast and highly-organized compendium of information. Oregon, in particular, has an extraordinary community of editors, illustrating how some loosely-organized collaboration, sprinkled with a little good humor, can deliver even more impressive results. (Wikipedia's Oregon portal is a good place to get a feel for the articles this project has produced.) But ultimately, Wikipedia's mission is to broad to include, for instance, highly-detailed information about various proposed electoral reforms, or the campaign strategies used around an issue like gay marriage.

Drawing on Wikipedia as an inspiration, a resource, and hopefully even a source for volunteers, this component of the project will aim to provide the sort of information that might help you put a story about the proposed removal of dams on the Klamath River into historical context, or understand why a single police shooting might mean much more than it would appear to the community it affects. (Wikipedia has developed some good guidelines around reliable sources, verifiability, neutral point of view, and other issues.)

This project will probably rely on a wiki-based web site, but other platforms for more structured information (like online databases dabbledb.com or wagn.org) may be more appropriate for some content. See an example on DabbleDB, a database of (some) Oregon ballot measures. It's also possible that producing pamphlets or other printed media will be desirable.

Existing resources:

• Oregon.gov has lots of info, including the State Archives, innumerable reports from various commissions, briefs prepared for legislators. this one on taxation looks promising.
• News outlets like the Oregonian, Statesman Journal, etc. are searchable at the Multnomah County Library web site. Portland Mercury, Tribune and other outlets have full archives online.
• Good info often appears on blogs, but is often inadequately sourced.
• Existing policy analysis and advocacy organizations like Oregon Center for Public Policy, Democracy Reform Oregon have resources online.

Possible projects:

• Complete the Oregon Ballot Measure database on DabbleDB
• Move Oregon Revised Statutes and/or Constitution to wiki, and start linking things up (when were certain laws added, by what process…etc.)
• Overview of taxation in Oregon

Project: Influence

Use an online, collaborative process to develop policy recommendations. Generate broad consensus using an inclusive process. Lobby relevant legislative body(s) (Portland City Council, Oregon Legislative Assembly, etc.) to adopt policy recommendations.

This process would rely on wiki software and, most likely, Consensus Polling or some variant thereof. In-person meetings would be essential, to involve those not hip to online collaboration, and to reach new participants. (Take a Seat at the Table and The Archimedes Movement are two local organizations that have had some success with "offline" versions of this type of project.)

Possible issues

• Get government-produced materials released into the public domain, or under a free license (current choice for first project; already underway, achievable, significant)
• (from Jen Yocum) Make and/or implement a street naming policy for Portland!
• (building on expertise of existing core group) Advise government on how to incorporate technology into its web sites, etc. Synergy with continued growth of group. (See video below)
• teacher tenure (Chris Beck)
• Use an existing tax reform proposal, like that developed by Senator Ben Westlund et. al., as a starting point. Discuss its basic assumptions, get to know the research used to support it, and revise as necessary. (That plan seems pretty good, and a lot of work went into it, but it's unlikely to go anywhere without help from outside the Legislature.)

Side benefits

• Introducing people to wiki technology; see [1] and [2] for some ideas about incorporating Wikipedia into education.

Links of interest

• Take a Seat at the Table [3]: Former NEA Chair, and U.S. Senate candidate John Frohnmayer established this organization, which has an approach and mission similar to ours, without as much of an online component.
• DemocracyLab [4]: Another similar project, takes a more "techy" approach.
• The Archimedes Movement [5]: Gov. Kitzhaber is very articulate on the topic of community-driven policymaking. Watch the video if you have time (44 minutes.)
• Free Geek [6] is run on consensus. They have a wiki, too.
• The Bus Project [7] is all about getting folks involved in state politics.
• The Well [8] nurtures online community. Requiring real names is their key to success.
• Baby Wikipedia: start with Wikipedia content, allow it to grow and change on its own.
• Ronald Brownstein The Second Civil War examines roots of extreme partisanship and the polarization of American politics.
• GreenPolicy.us [9]: Wiki-based site for environmental research and policy development.