As with many of my posts, the following is based on my tweets from the event. For other views, you might search Twitter for #PBConf19 (but watch out for tweets about a pharmacy conference using the same hashtag) or go to PB Scotland’s website. This also has mini-biographies of the speakers and information about the workshops.
Asides and Bruce-thoughts at the time of tweeting are usually in (round brackets). Extra text added while writing this post is in [square brackets].
NB the content of photos of slides and similar is all © their creators or other relevant ©-holders.
This is an update of a post from my first week in São Paulo, with input from my much better half. Mistakes of course are my fault, not hers.
- If we don’t get PB right first time, people will lose confidence in it.
- In this lesson, right can be replaced with good enough, because nothing is perfect, and Scotland is just learning to do PB.
- This lesson means we need effective processes so that people know they have made the choices.
- It also means that what is promised must be delivered near enough on time and near enough on budget.
- This should happen in any context, no matter how much (or how little) money is involved.
- We can argue about what near enough means at appropriate points.
- Projects must be monitored as they proceed.
- Also, due diligence/monitoring must happen at the end of project periods.
- And that data must be analysed to see what is effective.
- There should also be the possibility of discontinuing projects if it turns out that they are unlikely to be delivered, or if the benefits can be delivered in better ways, or if an urgent need arises for the money allocated to the project.
- But this must be done transparently, and must not even appear to be party-political.
- Don’t rely on revenue forecasts, because what is forecast may not materialise!
- Annual cycles, i.e. projects that must be started and completed in a year, may be sub-optimal.
- LeithChooses’ 2018 turnout (1000/20,000 = 5%) is good.
- The current Scottish model of PB should have a deliberation stage before projects are formulated.
- At the moment, PB process-runners (e.g.LeithChooses steering group) set themes, then invite projects.
- The Brazilian model involves participatory deliberation on what the themes should be.
- There should be some data gathered on who participates.
- This is to show whether PB schemes are truly participatory, and whether they attract votes from people who need the services PB would offer.
- Don’t build up an unhelpful bureaucracy around PB.
- This may lead to clashes between parts of the bureaucracy that support different aims and objectives.
- While spending money to create and perfect process is valid, wasting it on un-neccessary process is invalid, and puts people off the work.
I’ve been a mostly-quiet member of the Open Government Network Scotland for about two years. I’ve not done much, just quietly supported the idea that if we have access to facts and ideas, we can make more informed, and hence better, decisions. However, in December I spent a weekend proofreading a late draft of the new Open Government Action Plan, so I was delighted to be invited to this morning’s launch of the finished document.
As ever, this post is to consolidate and review my thinking and learning, as well as to share it. So errors and omissions in this account are mine.
Here is the agenda for the day. My tweets, thoughts and write-up follow it.
||Official Launch (Livestreamed): Welcome speeches by, then Q&As with, co-chairs of Open Government Steering Group:
- Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations, Michael Russell
- Member of the Open Government Partnership International Steering Committee, Lucy McTernan
- COSLA (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities) – Cllr Graham Houston, Vice President
||Workshop: Delivering the Action Plan in partnership and beyond
Group discussion questions: How do we work in partnership?
How do you want to be involved? How can government and civil society/third
sector work collaboratively together? How might this work? How do we take
Table 1: financial transparency
Table 2: participation and public involvement
Table 3: access to information
Table 4: being more accountable
Table 5: transparency on Brexit
||Closing remarks – Stephen Gallagher, Director of Local Government
||Lunch and networking
Saturday 2019_01_26 (continued), Sunday 2019_01_27
A long delay before the final leg… Continue reading
Going home 😦 Continue reading
It appears to have all come together on my last full day here. Continue reading
Well, today has been interesting and positive! This post is called ‘stinky’ because today was very hot. Continue reading