OpeningParliament.org

Open meetings need open data

Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:26am by posonmn4

This post was authored by .

Open meetings laws are an essential element of open government. Ensuring public access to government decision-making processes can help create transparency, allow for accountability, and encourage public participation in the choices being made on the public’s behalf.

For open meetings laws to live up to their full potential, they need to reflect the opportunities provided by recent advances in technology. Governments are already starting to update public records laws to take advantage of these kinds of advances, and open meetings laws are overduefor undergoing similar revisions.

Open meetings generate an abundance of public records, including agendas, minutes, votes, and more. Sharing these records online as open data is becoming increasingly easy and financially feasible. This opportunity is often missed by local governments, but that’s starting to change. States, counties, cities and towns across the country are finding ways to use open data to bolster open meetings, sharing information online about decision-making processes in easily accessible and reusable formats. Open data is helping in ways beyond making information more easily accessible, too. It’s also inviting the public to participate in the decision-making process in new ways — a key component of any open government initiative.

Recommendations for using open data to improve open meetings

Just as the public records process is being updated to take advantage of new technologies, it’s time for an overhaul of how governments approach open meetings. Some of the key principles of open data can be applied to broad improvements of open meetings policies. Here are some of the ways open data can be used to help bolster open meetings:

1. Post the open meetings law online

Open meetings laws are public accountability and access policies, and as such it makes sense to post these laws online where anyone can easily review their rights to access government. Posting these laws online also demonstrates that open meetings are part of the values, goals and mission of the government for keeping the public informed and engaged.

Click here to read more.

Global survey: Parliamentary voting data remains stuck in PDFs and hansards

Posted July 21, 2014 at 8:09am by kamilopblog

Some time ago, I surveyed all national parliaments in the world to see whether they record and publish results of plenary voting. In this post, I look at how exactly parliamentary voting data is provided. I also collected information about as much parliamentary monitoring organizations (PMOs) as I could find and to see whether and how they help open voting data up.

My sample includes 283 legislative chambers from 200 jurisdictions, mostly UN member states and some other territories (e.g. Taiwan, Hong Kong). There are two nation states included that no longer exist but voting results from their parliaments are still around: Czechslovakia (1991-1992) and the Fourth French Republic (1946-1958).

A chart below shows that knowing how your MPs decide is sadly still relatively rare worldwide. Only 90 legislative chambers publish at least some voting results. Moreover, many of these chambers publish results of very few votes. For example, about 20 votes per year are recorded in German Bundestaag while the number is well over 2,000 in the Czech Chamber of Deputies where every vote is taken as a roll call by default. Transparency of voting is generally lower in Africa and Asia and among non-democratic countries. But even in some old democracies, almost no voting data exist (e.g. in Austria, France, New Zealand or the Netherlands).

Click here to read more.

Going to OKFest? Help us connect and share knowledge across the OpenGov community

Posted July 11, 2014 at 7:40am by gregbrownm

This post was co-authored by Mor Rubinstein and Lindsay Ferris

There is a growing consensus in the international open government movement that more effective networking and better information sharing could strengthen the community and contribute to real political change. If the open government community can engage in more meaningful communication about the projects we are working on, the policies we are pushing for, and the tools we are using, we can better support advocates and activists in their push for greater political openness.

Several sessions have been organized at this year’s OKFest to address the issue of improved knowledge sharing and to find a way forward. We would like to bring two of these sessions to your attention — and encourage you to participate!

With participation from a diverse number of organizations, a two-part discussion is being organized to gather ideas on these important issues. These sessions are being co-organized by a diverse array of actors, including Open Knowledge, Sunlight Foundation, mySociety, KohoVolit.eu, ePantswo Foundation, World Bank, National Democratic Institute, and others. We have designed these sessions to gather feedback and solicit ideas from the international community; so, it seems appropriate to present these two discussions as a series of questions, rather than as a series of statements. The first session will address the following questions: Who are we? How does the international opengov community effectively map and connect the organizations and initiatives that make up the community? The second session will ask: How do we share knowledge? How can we use this knowledge to strengthen efforts to generate political change locally? We look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can address each of these questions at OKFest.

The first session, Open Data Communities, will consider how to connect the global open government data community. Often, efforts to map the international community have been fraught with problems, namely outdated or incomplete lists, unstandardized information and limited funding. Following conversations at Transparency Camp (Sunlight Foundation’s annual opengov gathering), discussion sprang up about the possibility of creating a living platform that would provide an overview of the open government community and allow stakeholders to connect with other actors. Some work has been done towards this goal and we’re excited to share some of that with you in Berlin. Community buy-in and participation are critical to the success of this project and we need your help to make it work.  

The second session will consider how we can more effectively share knowledge, tools, and good practices to create political reform. At the national level, open government organizations or activities can sometimes be viewed as marginal actors, particularly when they operate in a narrow sector, such as parliamentary openness or open contracting. Yet, when multiple actors in this space coalesce, either internationally or domestically, across sectors on specific reform issues, the political leverage of this community can be strengthened. In this session, we will explore opportunities for improving collaboration in collecting open data sets relating to political information, sharing tools for analyzing and visualizing this data, and sharing knowledge and best practices —- specifically with a view as to how more effective networking and knowledge sharing can drive openness reforms.

We are thrilled to have two one-hour sessions to discuss these issues. At a minimum, we hope that these sessions will generate energy and excitement about what the opengov community can achieve if we more effectively share information. We encourage you to participate and look forward to seeing you in Berlin!

Case Study #12: Vouliwatch

Posted July 6, 2014 at 4:02pm by gregbrownm

Vouliwatch logo.jpg

Organization: Vouliwatch

Country: Greece

Government Level: National

Overview: Vouliwatch is a digital platform that engages Greek citizens with legislative politics and grants them with the opportunity to communicate, evaluate and hold elected representatives in the Greek and the European Parliament (MPs & MEPs) accountable.

Background: Vouliwatch was set up in March 2014. It is an independent, non for profit organisation aiming to promote public dialogue, knowledge, political participation and accountability between citizens and politicians.

The mission of the project is to encourage Greek citizens to engage in politics, as well as to increase accountability and transparency in the Greek political system. To achieve this, the Vouliwatch team will be cooperating with politicians and civil society in order to promote a culture of dialogue and understanding.

Vouliwatch incubates and cultivates a synergistic democratic culture that inspires institutional and technological innovation. Therefore, we are looking for new ideas, concepts and human networks to disseminate and improve our project.

Click here to read more.

Monitoring MPs attendance? Compare 33 countries!

Posted July 2, 2014 at 9:31am by kamilopblog

Is your organization monitoring attendance of MPs? Compare attendance rates in your country with rates from as much as 33 parliaments!

KohoVolit.eu, a Czech and Slovak parliamentary monitoring organization has been publishing regular reports on attendance rates in Czech and Slovak parliaments. This is one of the most common activity that PMOs do. Although we had some success (e.g. when we scraped an online calendar of an MP with low attendance and were thus able to account for 50 % of his absence), these reports became rather repetitive. Attendance is usually very stable over time so the topic could cease to be interesting for journalists and citizens after a while.

When we were looking for ways how to spice it up it occurred to us that it would be great if we were able to compare attendance of our MPs with their colleagues from other parliaments. Journalists love such international comparisons and citizens are often very receptive to reports of their country being in some respect worse then its neighbours. So if your organization also informs about MPs attendance I strongly suggest to try the same.

Thanks to new developments in standardizing and gathering voting data (especially by a new federation of expert and organizations called Poplus) it has became possible for me to create a rather comprehensive archive of voting results in national and regional legislatures. Some datasets come from national parliaments that provide data dumps (e.g. BulgarianCzechGerman), some from parliamentary monitoring organizations and experts that scrape voting data (e.g. Canadian Open North, Israeli Open Knesset, Norwegian Holder de ords, Czech and Slovak KohoVolit.eu) and some from academicians (e.g. John CareyKeith Poole and Simon Hix, Abdul Noury and Gerard Roland).

The chart below visualizes attendance rates in 33 national parliaments. These are average rates taken across all MPs and all votes in a given period of time. In bicameral parliaments (e.g. Brazil, Canada, USA), these are rates for the lower chamber. It should be noted that in many parliaments, results of only some (and sometimes only very few) votes are published so the rates can be skewed. This is especially the case of Germany, Italy or Philippines where only final votes on bill proposals are recorded. I believe, however, that the chart is still useful for a rough comparison.

As far as I know, this is the most comprehensive comparison to date. I am expecting to receive more voting data soon so the chart will be updated with rates from other countries, namely: former Czechoslovakia (1990-1992), Honduras, Serbia, Switzerland. I would very much appreciate any feedback on these rates, especially from experts on parliaments included. For example, I was rather surprised to find out that Scandinavian parliaments exhibit relatively low attendance and I have no idea why. Also, if you happen to have any raw voting data or attendance rates let me know!

Kamil Gregor is a data analyst with KohoVolit.eu, a Czech and Slovak parliamentary monitoring organization, and Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic.

Monitoring parliamentary openness on the sub-national level: Czech experience

Posted June 27, 2014 at 10:37am by kamilopblog

In almost two years since the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness was drafted, many parliamentary monitoring organizations have realized its strength as a guideline for benchmarking openness of parliamentary data in various national parliaments and some of them have developed methodologies of capturing it. There are already comparative studies ranking selected parliaments according to their adherence to at least some articles of the Declaration.

The most prominent examples include a comparative study covering several Latin American congresses by the Latin American Network for Legislative Transparency that actually precedes the Declaration. Data availability of the Turkish and several Balkan parliaments was surveyed by a Serbian parliamentary monitoring organization Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability. Eastern European parliaments were also covered by a survey of the National Democratic Institute. And last but not least, a more tech-oriented methodology of data openness monitoring was developed by the Sunlight Foundation and applied to rank the US state legislatures.

Until today, however, there has been no attempt to measure parliamentary data openness on lower levels of government. At the same time, anecdotal evidence from all over the world seems to suggest that various regional and municipal parliaments and representative assemblies tend to be far less open than national parliaments.

KohoVolit.eu, a Czech and Slovak parliamentary monitoring organization, has recently published a brand new methodology of measuring parliamentary data openness based on the Declaration and applied it to the 14 Regional Assemblies in the Czech Republic. The Czech Regions operate on the second level of government. Their population varies between 300,000 and 1,200,000 in a country of some 10 million and their combined annual budgets correspond to about 12 % of total public sector expenditures. The capital of Prague is one of the Regions.

Click here to read more.

La agenda “extraparlamentaria” de los grupos del Congreso

Posted June 27, 2014 at 9:03am by victoriahuertas

  • Hemos examinado si los grupos parlamentarios publican agendas de sus diputados
  • Los grupos se reúnen con lobbies, grupos de presión, empresas y sociedad civil
  • Solo UPyD publica los encuentros fuera de la actividad “oficial” parlamentaria, como con BlaBlaCar, Cairn Energy o Greenpeace
  • El PP publica entrevistas y alguna asistencia a actos y el PSOE la actividad parlamentaria

Conocer el día a día al completo de los 350 diputados y diputadas puede ser una misión casi imposible en la actualidad, ya que la gran mayoría de los parlamentarios no cuenta con una agenda pública,pero sí existen algunas excepciones, tanto de diputados como de grupos parlamentarios.

Reunión de UPyD con la Federación de Organizaciones en favor de Personas con Discapacidad Intelectual
Reunión de UPyD con la Federación de Organizaciones en favor de Personas con Discapacidad Intelectual. Imagen: FEAPS/Flickr

En este post nos centramos en las agendas de los grupos, más sencillas de localizar que las individuales, ya que de los siete grupos que hay en el Congreso, cuatro tienen página web (PSOECiUUPyD y PNV) y el PP tiene una cuenta de Facebook bastante activa.

En los casos de los grupos de del Grupo Mixto y de Izquierda Plural, al estar formados por tantos partidos, no tienen una web conjunta. Sin embargo, en este último caso cuentan con una web de apoyo, Once diputados, que resume su actividad parlamentaria en un boletín.

Click here to read more.