Trump kills nation’s first Open Government Federal Advisory Committee, firing me along with it

The Open Government Federal Advisory Committee (OG FAC) is dead. But the work to create a more open and accountable government goes on, as it always does, no matter who is alive in the White House.

Although the committee was only formed last October, we already completed work that I think may be valuable to the open government community at large — see the appendix at the end.

When I was appointed to OG FAC last year by the General Services Administration (GSA) I knew that a Trump Administration was a likely possibility, and I remained ready in the month since President Trump’s inauguration to provide advice to GSA within the scope of the committee. Nor did I join the committee only to hold President Trump accountable: I also knew that a Harris Administration was not only possible, it was more likely to heed our advice (it probably would not have terminated the committee). I was eager to create a more open and accountable government under either scenario, consistent with my decades-long career advocating for the same for the U.S. Congress.

As, I believe, were the other members.

This may not be as important as President Trump’s firing of Inspectors General, the head of the Office of the Special Counsel, prosecutors and the nation’s Archivist, and military JAGs, or cutting watchdog agencies like CFPB, or the Administration’s construction of elaborate lies about waste, fraud, and abuse rather than engaging in the very real impediments to an open and accountable government that do exist, but it is another step in a very obvious pattern.

I’m not talking about the Administration’s overhaul of the size and shape of the government. I’m talking about the guardrails that keep the country on the path of better and better democratic accountability.

OG FAC was the first of its kind in the U.S. federal government: A mix of private individuals (who became unpaid Special Government Employees for their service on the committee — I was in this category) and regular government employees with a wide range of experience and accomplishments in government accountability work. Plus, the government officials at our host agency, GSA’s Open Government Secretariat, were willing to listen. In our meetings thus far, we were ready to get to work and established a baseline rubric for our advice. I was impressed by the other members, and I believed the committee could have led by example a new way to engage in this work.

But the committee was not permitted to meet at its first scheduled meeting after Trump’s inauguration, and today members were informed that the committee was “terminated.” This was, of course, not unexpected.

I expect the Trump Administration will end the United States’s decade-long participation in the multinational Open Government Partnership (OGP), which OG FAC was meant to advise on. Honestly, that would have been fine with me. I was not especially a fan of OGP. But OG FAC’s second remit to advise GSA on emerging open government issues was as important as ever, and the termination of the committee is a failure.

Daniel Schuman, until today OG FAC’s chair, wrote earlier today, “The United States should be thrown out of the Open Government Partnership and all countries should join in condemning the United States for democratic backsliding.” I agree.

Appendix: OG FAC’s open government idea evaluation rubric

In early January, OG FAC adopted a rubric to informally guide the committee in evaluating open government ideas that may have come before us. I worked on this rubric, with other committee members, but given the unfortunate political environment I don’t want to put anyone on the spot by naming them as I hastily write up this statement. For posterity, I’m pasting the rubric below:

Practicality + Specificity
Is the implementation feasible? What is the degree of risk? Is the idea fully specified? It is expected that ambitious ideas won’t be the most feasible. We also want to see low-hanging fruit.

Score 0: It’s not legal (and doesn’t propose a change to law). It requires impractical resources (and doesn’t proposed a path for how those resources would be acquired). Probably disqualifying.

Score 1: It proposes a change in law, an executive order, or a regulation before the idea can begin or to fund it but no efforts to do so are underway. Or it does not specify whose buy-in is required or who will perform the work. Or the implementation timeframe is too long.

Score 2: It depends on the uncertain approval of specified senior leaders or collaboration across specified agencies. Efforts to change the law to support the idea are underway.

Score 3: Can be implemented at the staff level and those roles are clearly identified. Milestones are clearly articulated.

Impact + Ambition
The scale and scope of the outcomes (potential impact) and the work to be done (level of effort or ambition). Not all ideas need to be ambitious if they are practical and have committed engagement.

Score 0: Milestones or completion are too vague. Or impact does not serve the public interest. Probably disqualifying.

Score 1: Idea is a simple extension of an existing program.

Score 2: Impact is of significant public interest or fills a significant, immediate gap and milestones/completion are verifiable.

Score 3: Completion creates “binding, institutionalized, or lasting change” (see OGP IRM) or multiplies the impact of other open government efforts.

Engagement + Commitment
Is the idea responsive to the public? Are government actors engaged?

Was the idea created by or in collaboration with significant stakeholders in the public?

Is there broader contemporary public demand for the idea and/or its outcomes?

Are key government roles informally or formally committed to the idea in principle?

Open Government
Is it in scope for the OG FAC and NAP? Will it create a more accountable government?

Score 0: Does not fall with the OG FAC scope as outlined in our charter. Does not fall within the scope for OGP National Action Plan. Probably disqualifying.

Score 1: Relates to service delivery innovation but not government accountability.

Score 2: Promotes transparency, participation, collaboration, or another accountability theme of open government.