Dead Spots On The Lcd

draft Transparency Act

read in the Info Web Access , the Government is still not very clear with the Law of Transparency and Access of Citizens to Information, although it seems that since the organization had access to a version of the draft. In fact, as discussed, along with 40 other members of the NGO Coalition Pro-Access to State Government have called for "greater transparency on the transparency law," no doubt quite a paradox about how much still needs to be changed in the Administration. Well, even sent a letter to the Government on August 20 requesting a copy of the draft and calling for a public consultation on the draft, which have not yet been answered. In this sense, have launched a survey whose results they plan to refer to the Executive. An obvious example of how such inaction can be circumvented by the use of ICTs .... This is real participation, although the Open Government is conspicuous by its absence! Or not.

Average Price For A Kiosk At The Mall

legal challenges of the Open Government (2)

The second axis turning on the Open Government regards the participation certainly a hot topic as Nacho Criado raised in his comment to my previous post : to what extent the direct democracy is preferable to merely representative? This is not the appropriate place to address this essential debate in depth, but from the perspective that concerns us is clear that, beyond the use of technology, there are tools that allow participation in various fields. We will focus our discussion on two of them, especially relevant: the regulatory authority and the administrative procedure.

As far as the production standards, we must distinguish the two existing main manifestations: the legislative power and regulations. As regards the former, in most modern States recognizes citizens' legislative initiative called , ie a predetermined number of citizens support a particular regulatory proposal, which then is sent the legislative body (Parliament or regional legislative assemblies in the English model). The main shortcomings of this approach lie on one side, the large number of supports required, that at the state level is raised to 500,000 signatures. Undoubtedly ICT greatly facilitate the completion of this requirement (see previous post Finally one can conclude with the DNI-e a ILP), but this would require not only have an electronic ID card or other form of electronic signature, but above all , have the appropriate means to do and how to deal with such daunting task. Nor is success guaranteed, because the underlying problem is that hardly move when citizens participate in the political arena, although undoubtedly some initiatives would be a success matters more than the insured (relative to imagine P2P networks, as we mentioned in an entry above). Moreover, even if they obtain the necessary number of supporters, there is a link between the legislative body for the initiative, while recognizing that at least force our "supposed" representatives to express their discretion to vote on issues really matter to a good number of citizens. Perhaps if the sense of remuneration of voting had taken over our country culturally ...

Regarding the process of drawing up the rules of participation opportunities for citizens is not to be too favorable, but the possibilities offered by ICT have received explicit recognition at the policy level, how would then be able to require certain behavior to the Government concerned. Take for example the state level: the art. 24 of the Act when the standard Government

"affect the rights and lawful interests of citizens, shall be heard [...] directly or through organizations and associations recognized by the Act including or represent them and whose purposes directly related to the subject of the provision. [...] Also, when the nature of the provision indicates, will be subject to public information during the period indicated.

seems obvious that the literal wording of this provision is not very prone to the possibility for citizens to speak out, and formalized within the process of drawing up the regulations, what is your criterion: the involvement of both associations and, above all, the enormous discretion that is surrounding the decision to submit the text to public information leave the matter to the government itself. Finally, the fox and the henhouse ...

Nor is much more hopeful the regulation of participation within the administrative procedure. Beyond the unquestionable right of every citizen in the particular procedure that has concerned the legal status of the art. 86 of Law 30/1992 is even less demanding noting that when the nature of proceedings so requires may agree a period of public information. No doubt it seems necessary that the government take the complexity of social and economic context in which they develop their business and, therefore, are an essential tool to adapt the administrative procedure to the demands and challenges. In this respect it seems to me highly recommended reading the work of Javier Barnes on administrative procedure and e-government, including the categorization made on the third generation administrative procedures.

Finally, taking into account the enormous opportunities offered by ICT involvement is evident that the current regulatory framework is clearly inadequate. It looks like the snake biting its tail: the citizens do not participate, but that the regulatory framework does not specifically invited to do so ... What the Law 11/2007, provides a remarkable novelty? Well, another opportunity missed, but not surprising given the concept "bureaucratic" that permeates the governance model that underpins the standard: not a single reference to participation beyond the recognition of it as one of the objectives of the Law in the art. 3.6. But if they never set out concrete mechanisms for achieving the goal! And the Royal Decree develops own Le and therefore better not to talk ... more of the same.