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.

Telecharger Hdloader 3.8

legal challenges of the Open Government (1)

I just started reading one of the books I had booked for this summer ( Open Government. Open Government) and, although I have not yet passed the introduction by the coordinators and César Calderón Sebastián Lorenzo , I could not resist to share in the blogosphere some of the thoughts that I have raised, especially given the significant lack of qualified lawyers from the list of authors of the book: Is it we are not up to the times? Anyway, this burst of summer is a sign of firm intention that, once again (is it the end?), I have proposed: to increase the regularity of my activity in the blogosphere, both personally and in relation to a research project I am coordinating: Innovation, Technology and eGovernment: Towards a new model of eGovernment (soon I hope to provide updates). Returning

reviews of the book, I'll take the three strands in the Introduction identifies as hallmarks of Open Government to treat provide a legal perspective on some of the difficulties and barriers that, in my opinion, should be solved. In order to not be thinking too "brainy" (criticism usually makes us jurists in other environments outside the law) this post will be continued with another in which I will refer to the other two cornerstones to the authors , participation and collaboration).

begin, then, by the transparency . I am increasingly convinced that the democratic nature of our administration should be strengthened beyond mere formal statements contained in constitutional and laws, so that the control over it was really effective. Even just by higher transparency may know the reality of administrative action and, therefore, allow citizens to exercise our rights formalized through such remedies, complaints or claims. What good have to end up filing an administrative appeal simply to gain legal protection that recognizes our right of access to information in a second stage, we will assess whether a fresh application on the merits of the case?

Access to information is strengthened in those areas sectoral which recognizes the so-called "public action" (urban planning, environment, lack of budgetary provision of municipal services required ...), so that the restrictions in the general scheme are mitigated in these cases because, in the final instance, knowledge of data and documents is essential to make timely claim, as argued above. And, indeed, one of the main constraints to which we refer later; legitimacy for the exercise of the actions is recognized any citizen or entity, beyond the limitations of the concept of interest, which requires ownership of a right or legitimate interest. Or in other words, any citizen is recognized in these areas, the ownership of a legitimate interest, provided the individuals whose practical importance is recognized in the art . 24 of the Constitution: the effective judicial protection of such legitimate interests. This would be the way forward in terms of legal regulation model! In this sense, the Law 27/2006 of 18 July, regulating the rights of access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters (includes Directives 2003 / 4/CE and 2003/35/EC), has strengthened the law access and, despite some of its provisions are too general, is a clear example of how to use the law to ensure greater transparency. Just do not forget that an initiative was not "spontaneous" but the English legislature, on the contrary, an obligatory transposition of EU law.

Moreover, access to public information is now strengthened from a unique perspective not always notice that, however, offers suggestions to facilitate access possibilities: its economic value, so that should be made available to individuals, businesses and citizens, that they can exploit it economically providing value added services. No doubt a huge challenge for obscurantist culture that prevails in the administrative practice and that, unless some paradigmatic examples (see Basque Government's initiative ), is still to be implemented in Spain. What a coincidence, again it is a matter which, although regulated by the English legislature ( Law 37/2007 of November 16 ) brings because of European commitments. Culture of transparency much we need, indeed! For if ye be of interest, a group of researchers from various European institutions are working in this field ( Lapsi project), I will be catching up with the news.

Undoubtedly, the great contribution of ICTs in this area is that it allows the government to go for a new model in the provision of information, so that beyond the model "reactive" as opposed to any requests that will undoubtedly can receive and respond electronically (including an automated, on the timely identification when needed) would allow a model "proactive" in the dissemination of information and even customizing the service. Here is, therefore, the added value that the Administration provide electronics (albeit not in the model of Law 11/2007, an example of "electronic bureaucracy) on transparency and access to information, but you must overcome inertia, so entrenched in our culture, administrative, redirect information to "documents formalized", "files and records" and, especially, that access to information is largely a subjective right to be exercised formalized and therefore will result in a response also formalized through the requisite procedures. Although, I must say, when the city goes in person to the administrative offices for access to the file, it is the official treating him who gives (or not) the documentation required in order to provide you with the exercise of its right, ultimately decides in legal terms. When, in fact, should be the holder of the competent body authorized by, or at least dictate general instructions about so effectively assume its responsibilities in this area. But, as I said, inertia, laziness and poor democratic belief in the importance of access to public information campaigns to ease our administrative organizations.

Rc Crawler Crane Model

Act Access to Information

seems that finally confirmed the rumors and this Friday will approve the long-awaited draft law Transparency and Citizen Access to Public Information (see news ). Certainly it is a standard necessity given as obscurantist culture that has traditionally inspired administrative practice in this area. However, without prejudice to me seems necessary, and consider the positive silence as an important, why can not fail to recall that precisely this setting has traditionally existed in the local area and, unfortunately for our democratic system has worked little or nothing ... when several years after a court ruling gave the reason the appellant and required that the Administration provide information. "
Unfortunately, we still have no access to the draft text, which appears to have been promptly leaked to the media in paradoxical example of access to information, not by the citizens (who are denying us access to both document and therefore, participation in the process of development of the standard) but for the media: I am convinced that such approaches are what should be changed beyond the necessary policy reforms, particularly taking into account the enormous potential Formenta technology offers effective participation. Why not set a mandatory one processing public information by electronic means, when rules are made that affect the legal status of citizens?
In short, do incorporate the proposed reform of the Penal Code criminalizing the conduct of public authority, being obliged to, refuse to hand over information even in cases of positive silence? Yes it did start to believe that the English government will be more transparent ... and therefore more democratic.