Gobbledygook
I like the idea of an initiative that would increase citizen participation in and feedback about policy-making. I hate the language that invariably accompanies such proposals. Instructions like "develop a high-level, interagency governance structure to oversee the implementation of the directive" don't actually mean a lot. Neither does "Take on traditional managerial resistance to public participation in agencies by designating a senior level champion."
There are real challenges here. Trying to find sensible channels for public feedback and integrating that feedback into the decision-making process isn't necessarily easy, and will add to people's workloads. Adding layers of public comment erodes management's power, and that's something that people will have to get comfortable with. But adding a high-level official whose job it is to cheerlead for public comment, or creating a panel to oversee how folks integrate public feedback, doesn't actually solve those very practical problems. And couching them in management-speak, sadly, isn't a very good place to start.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Shocked! Hurt! Dismayed! I've been accused before of wonkish writing, but not gobbledygook! Upon reflection, I shall sign up for Plain Language training at www.plainlanguage.gov for a brush up on my remedial writing skills.
John K. Posted Monday, April 13, 2009 4:31 PM"Adding layers of public comment erodes management's power,,,,"
That's only if management pays any attention. One hopes that managers will give due consideration to citizen comments, but if there are thousands and thousands of them, getting things accomplished in a timely manner could suffer. Nevertheless, it's worth a try, isn't it?
Loren T. Posted Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:29 AMWhat happened to "ombudsman"? What happened to simply reading (and responding to) the letters that people write to agencies and Congress? I once worked (some layers down) under an agency head who had been embarrassed in a Congressional hearing over a letter he knew nothing about. For the rest of his time, this executive insisted on reading all Congressional correspondence, which meant that all of his subordinate directors also had to read the letters. Of course, before and after this political appointee, the other heads of the agency let their Congressional liaisons deal with the correspondece. The liaisons were more concerned with timeliness than issues, and boilerplate replies returned to dominence. The point is that accountability and access are not rocket science and not difficult to achieve. It only takes will.
Ted Bean Posted Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:52 AM