More from Wiki Government! On page 29, Ms. Noveck writes, “Countless civic groups already use new communication and information sharing tools to promote political action, operate an opposition movement, or mobilize community activism. Collaborative governance needs to be distinguished from this kind of civic action that is independent of government – change.org instead of change.gov. ….They may circle around political themes and issues but not are tied to institutional processes. They are, therefore, limited in what they can accomplish.”
Ms. Noveck then goes on to describe a program in Connecticut called the City Scan program that helped city governments “rescue derelict land-use sites” — city governments committed to assisting in cleaning up derelict sites, local people then tracked the progress of individual cities in cleaning up these parcels, posting to the web and giving valuable information to the various municipalities, while the municipalities took action based on the citizens’ input and information.
This example makes me think about Edmonton Public’s Sector Review process currently underway. In its ideal form, to me, this process is similar to the model described above…but I stand to be corrected! Here is how I see it: The Board has an obligation to provide excellent public education in the city with the resources it has. These resources include its capital resources, human resources and the annual funding it receives from the provincial government. The resources are not enough to meet all the needs. So, the Board is asking the residents of each sector to take a look with the Board at what education is being offered within that sector (i.e. what programs are being offered, what are the gaps), how it is being offered, how many children are attending the schools within the sector, who the children are and the type of needs they have, the shape of the capital assets (aka buildings), and the values of the community around both public education and the school buildings. The question is then … what is the best plan for this sector going forward to ensure we are in the best position to meet the educational needs of this generation of children and the next generation?
To me the process is intended to work with citizens on creating a go-forward plan and is very much tied to the institutional processes of both educational and capital planning. So, is this an example of “making government better”? There is a website connected to the process (http://sectorreview2010.com) that is tracking all the comments made at face-to-face meetings, providing information, and answering questions. But could technology be better used to draw in more citizens and their expertise, values, and skills to this process – i.e. not only to reflect back what was said but also to allow for sifting and sorting the thoughts and ideas and facts. Ideas?
