Sunday, November 24, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Open data is data that can be freely used, reused and redistributed by anyone - subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and sharealike.
Not only the data, but the code used to create government websites, portals, tools, and other online resources can provide further benefits, as valuable open data itself. Governments should employ open source solutions whenever possible to enable sharing and make the most out of these benefits. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) began publishing open code on the social code site GitHub in 2012, citing that doing so helped them fulfill the mission of their agency and facilitated their technical work. (More information is available in the announcement blogpost on the CFPB’s website.)
The New York Times called this discovery of uses for public data in both government and private markets the "Moneyball" revolution:
The story is similar in fields as varied as science and sports, advertising and public health — a drift toward data-driven discovery and decision-making.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Dusting this thing off.
I meant to start writing again this time last year as work began on what would become SB283. Then I meant to write about the process as SB283 was drafted and passed. Then I meant to write about the Transparency Advisory Boards new tasks under SB283 and what Open Data (and open data) mean. Then I meant to write about SB283, Sunlight Foundation's Transparency Camp '13 in DC, Neal Stephenson's "information as power" novels, and what Open Data (and open data) mean.
And somehow it is now September. You know how it goes. We can't all be Holly Richardson, who's raised 2,314 children, cans everything that grows, serves on the State Records Cmmte, runs campaigns, and still finds time to write on her blog. I'd hate her if she wasn't a good person on top of it all.
I've written about it before here but the reverse process from my recent appointment to the TAB, back to passage of SB283, before that the 2011 GRAMA Work Group, and before that the nefarious HB477 is an amazing trip that -- forgive my sappiness -- really reminds you that good things can come from bad, and that overall, Utah lawmakers, legislative staff, and activists alike have common goals. Differences and disagreements more often come from talking around each other than they do from actually disagreeing when it comes to transparent government.
That's not to say there aren't some who don't care, or even prefer closed doors. It's not to say there isn't a time to shout "What do you have to hide?!" Shouting can be useful and fun. I'm a fan. But from the stories we heard during the Governor's GRAMA work group to the warm response I've more often than not received from lawmakers to my questions, confusion, and even naivete, it seems like better conversations can and do lead to better things happening. And as I've also written here before, more members of our legislature are open to that better conversation than not. None of this would be going forward if Sen. Niederhauser hadn't entertained my half crocked ideas, or if Sen. Henderson hadn't bravely put her name (and patience with me) on this.
Sometimes, believe it or not, our electeds, cities, and agencies don't want to bury information or access. They just don't understand what you mean with your fancy JSON files this and your high-falutin' open source that.
I think that's where SB283 and the coming work of the TAB on tackling Open Data Standards comes in. Utah is already ahead of the curve on technology use and records law. The board has a lot of ground to cover in an already short period of time. It probably won't go all of the places I want it to go. And as Jesse Harris, Phil Windley, Sen. Henderson, Holly Richardson, Patricia "Walking Institution of Knowledge" at the state archivists' office (who's testimony at the GRAMA work group hearings really opened my eyes) and everyone else involved with getting this process off the ground will probably tell you, I struggle with that whole pragmatic thing. But this board will go some amazing places, and if you take a close look at the final 1/3 of SB283 (the "shall" part), this is just the start of a really important discussion.
I have a lot of things I plan to write about. Open Data vs. open data. What the board shouldn't try to do. What the board is doing (of course). How this one time I called Sen. Bramble mid-session with a question about my notes from the GRAMA work group and -- get this -- he still hasn't called me back. Like he was busy at the time or something. I know, right?!
And one last very important thing for me to get down personally, ahead of what will be my first TAB meeting as an official board member: The Sunlight Foundation. L(e), Zubedah (The Secretary), "StereoGab," Rebecca with the Cool Last Name, and anyone else near Dupont Circle maybe using a stack of boxes as a desk (by choice) as I type this, this has been a crash course education for me, and you all are great teachers. The Sunlight Foundation is an understated and irreplaceable resource for cities, states, and even countries working toward healthy government and informed citizenry. Fun fact: an unexpected meet up and conversation with L(e) thousands of miles from Utah on the Rhode Island waterfront was the first time I'd heard the words "open data standard" and realized how well the very concept answered the questions left in my head after the GRAMA work group wrapped. How random is that?
I never meant to be a "transparency activist." I was intent and happy with being a loudmouth. I'm most qualified for the latter, and I honestly have no idea what I'm doing. But I am really looking forward to writing about and participating in the TAB and the (hopefully) ongoing Open Data Standards discussion.
Friday, May 24, 2013
The full cost-benefit report on Utah expanding Medicaid is out. And the Salt Lake Tribune has a thorough breakdown of key details. One big takeaway sure to challenge the political narrative we've heard from state lawmakers so far:
Both full expansion and no expansion scenarios project a boost to Utah's economy, including the creation of new jobs. Without expansion the projected economic benefit is about $516 million. A $2.9 billion economic lift,and 4,160 new jobs, are projected under full expansion.For advocates, the projected 123k+ insured is enough. But with projected economic benefits like $2.9b in economic growth, those lawmakers focused only on bottom lines and price tags will have a much harder time justifying their opposition.
Lincoln Nehring of Voices for Utah Children is quoted saying now that the state can't say we can't afford it, this is a question of values. Can lawmakers and Governor Herbert put more insured Utahns at a higher priority than the politics of insisting Obamacare is the worst thing ever to happen in the history of things that happened while a Democrat was in the White House? And also: Death Panels!
We'll see. All I can predict with certainty is that Rep. Anderegg's inevitable passionate speech in opposition to all this math will be priceless.
|I'm reading: Medicaid expansion a question of values ~|
Posted by Jason The at 11:01 AM
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
During the 2011 GRAMA work group, created in response to public outcry over HB477 and proposed changes to Utah's GRAMA law, I learned three things:
- Utah has an amazing FOI law in GRAMA, defining public data.
- An aggressive online infrastructure is already in place, but not being fully utilized in the availability of public data as defined by GRAMA.
- Despite the image HB477 created, most of our lawmakers have high respect for transparency, being held accountable, and public access to information.
After we had made our recommendations as a work group -- almost all of which were enacted in Sen. Bramble's SB177 in 2012 -- I continued my conversations with state agencies, cities, counties, lawmakers, and transparency advocates here in Utah. I had long conversations with the Sunlight Foundation (who, surprisingly, never stopped answering my constant questions) and open data leaders in other states regarding the implementation of public data policy. The questions I had:
- Are we getting the most out of our FOI laws?
- Is there waste, inconsistency, or even unnecessary cost for both the state and the public regarding the release of public data?
- Could improvements be made easily?
- Do the necessary tools exist already?
The answers were always: Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
The next step became obvious. To borrow the words of the sponsor of the bill resulting from these many conversations, Sen. Deidre Henderson in a KNRS interview last Friday: In Utah "the wheel has already been invented, we just need to streamline the process."
In December, all of this talk became a reality when Sen. Henderson agreed to head the effort up. A small brainstorming group came together quickly, including Sen. Henderson, former lawmaker (and troublemaker) Holly Richardson, myself, Laurenellen McCann by phone from the Sunlight Foundation, and two people who know more about IT and data processes than anyone I know, Jesse Harris, and Phil Windley.
A skeleton bill was drafted, and our group expanded to include representatives from state archives, records, the Chief Information Officer's office, and additional members of the original GRAMA work group. I've been told Sen. Todd Weiler wants in, but he doesn't know the secret knock, so... Kidding! Sen. Henderson has made it known she wants the process behind possibly changing the process of how data gets to the public to be open, and has even asked for your feedback via her post at The Senate Site.
Personally, I'm hoping for a robust discussion and passage, followed by what will surely be a continued refining of the data policy, streamlined by this bill.
So why am I writing this? Two reasons. I want to start a conversation about the importance of an open data standard in ensuring we get the most -- both in efficiency and effectiveness -- out of an already impressive environment surrounding public data in Utah. More on that coming soon. I also wanted to highlight this entire process. From HB477 two years ago, to the work group, to the openness and sincerity and excitement of Senate leadership, staff, and of course Sen. Henderson herself in making this come together has been amazing.
On KVNU's For the People I get calls all the time from Utahns who feel their government doesn't listen. "They don't care what we think." "They don't listen to the little guy." "They're out of touch." Maybe this is a fair criticism, sometimes. But in Utah, it's also true and important to recognize that anyone -- even an unapologetic lefty activist/blogger/heckler, like me -- can still get the ear of lawmakers and be a part of the process armed with nothing more than their email address, phone numbers, and an idea.
That is very cool.
I'll write more about the usefulness of an open data standard in the coming days, but I wanted to tell this story first. I think it's easy to take for granted, or even get caught up in our (admittedly fun, equally important) partisan differences or the very "western" innate (and somewhat healthy) mistrust of government. But it's nice to have a reminder that here in Utah anyone willing to jump in, through lawmakers eager to engage, can be a part of the process.
Thanks to Sen. Niederhauser and Sen. Henderson for engaging.
|I'm reading: From HB477 to an Open Data Standard for Utah ~|
Posted by Jason The at 6:24 PM
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Ran across an interview by KUED as part of their Healthcare: Facing the Barriers documentary. Contrast today's staunch opposition to Obamacare and the Medicaid expansion with Sen. John Valentine, 2007:
By making it more affordable, you have a way to be able to get insurance. Let’s use an analogy of a car. Not everyone can afford an Expedition--a large SUV. But most people can afford a smaller car. If they can't afford a smaller car then perhaps they have to take public transit. Now some of us will go in and out of the various different systems. For example, I'll take my large SUV up to 106th South and get on tracks to go down to a Jazz game or go down to the Symphony or to go to Temple Square because it's more efficient to take that, it's faster oftentimes and I don't have to find a place to park. So you use various different aspects of the system based upon what is going to work for you on that particular day. Well healthcare can do the same thing. You can have a healthcare program that has a basic system and if you want to afford add-ons, you can buy the add-ons, but everyone should be able to afford a basic system--that's the view that Utah would like to put forward.
The view 2007 Utah would like to put forward sounds a lot like a public option, and exactly like Romneycare in MA, a program Obamacare borrows heavily from especially regarding expanding access to reduce costs associated with a high number of uninsured. An idea 2007 Valentine also endorses:
I would start with a basic policy that could be affordable for all Utahans. It would be a basic policy. It would not have a lot of the bells and whistles that we keep mandating to insurance carriers. On that basic policy, the premium on it would be means tested, in other words, depending upon your income would be dependent on what you'd have to pay for that policy. That policy would be available to everybody above the poverty line. People at the poverty line would be covered by Medicaid--that's a federal program that the state participates in. I wouldn't change that part of it. But it's for those uninsured Utahans above the poverty line, but not able to obtain insurance through their own employer. That basic coverage would be just that--it would be very basic. It would not have a lot of the things on it that people expect with insurance when they have expectation of full indemnity, in other words it covers everything. But that basic policy would provide a basic coverage for everyone to be able to afford.
Sen. Valentine also endorses a collaborative effort between states and the federal government to expand access and reduce premium costs. While true to his conservative nature opposing mandates and "Canada-care," 2007 Valentine draws a stark contrast with the position of Gov. Herbert and many legislators expressed today. "The states can't go it alone," 2007 Valentine says, without hesitation.
Is the takeaway here that, uninsured be damned, a good idea is only a good idea if "our guy" is in the White House? If expanding Medicaid was a good idea in 2007, it's only a better idea in 2013 as costs have continued to more than triple in Utah.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
I'm sure this RINO making all this hoity-toity smart sounding talk is soon to be purged and sanitized. Still, smart:
I’m not the biggest fan of Eisenhower or Nixon, but they (and Reagan) are clearly preferable to this post-Reagan Republican Party. Those presidents won national majorities for a reason. They weren’t strict conservatives, but they certainly weren’t any less conservative than the Bushes, McCain, or Romney. They didn’t pretend they were going to abolish the welfare state — often, they didn’t even pretend they would cut the welfare state — unlike so many of today’s Republicans, who don’t follow through but do use their rhetoric to polarize. That gives us the worst of both worlds: big government plus the delusional sense within one party that it represents the antithesis of big government and may freely hate other Americans who don’t mouth the mantra. And what goes for big government goes for Judeo-Christian values, a strong national defense, and all the rest: the GOP’s rhetoric occupies a separate mental compartment from its actions, even as its voters and ideological apologists continue to believe that there is a profound moral difference between them and the rest of the country. It’s a losing strategy, and worse, it’s made the country ungovernable even as government grows.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
(Crossposted at MyDD)
May be my partisan view, watching from home, but the enthusiasm today seemed more palpable than last week, complete with mentions of the candidate by name that seemed both frequent and -- get this -- intentional! Hmm. Not only Obama himself but specific policy and programs received direct and often detailed positioning in quite a few remarks. The scene felt more like what I'd expect at a convention than my take on the all-things-generic-Republican (and some Romney guy too) RNC.
Also included: more than one strong commitment from speakers on gay marriage, not just in the approved platform items but as a rallying point (for turnout?). Interesting, considering this was only 2004.
Lilly Ledbetter was solid:
Three years ago, the house passed the paycheck Fairness Act to level the playing field for America's women. Senate Republicans blocked it. Mitt Romney won't even say if he supports it. President Obama does. In the end, I didn't get a dime of the money I was shortchanged.
But this fight became bigger than Lilly Ledbetter. Today, it's about my daughter. It's about my granddaughter. It's about women and men. It's about families. It's about equality and justice.
This cause, which bears my name, is bigger than me. It's as big as all of you.'Obamacare' fully embraced. "Real people, real problems" far better, far more tangibly defined than those spoken at/about in the Made Up Scary President Republican Universe.
Tim Kaine said some things I tried not to pay attention to.
Noted by a smart guy on Twitter:
Biggest news of the conventions is that both parties are now chasing Dem-leaning demographics--Latinos and women. [...] This ends decades when both chased GOP-leaners (southerners, suburbanites, working class whites).CSPAN has video of the whole shebang. Stand outs to me were (in content, if not delivery) San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro's stark contrast of the choice this election is about:
We all understand that freedom isn't free. What Romney and Ryan don't understand is that neither is opportunity. We have to invest in it.
Republicans tell us that if the most prosperous among us do even better, that somehow the rest of us will too. Folks...we've heard that before.
First they called it 'trickle-down.' Then 'supply side.' Now it's 'Romney/Ryan.' Or is it 'Ryan/Romney'?
Either way, their theory has been tested. It failed. Our economy failed. The middle class paid the price. Your family paid the price. Mitt Romney just doesn't get it.And of course the Twitter busting (nearly double that of Romney's acceptance speech) boat of awesome that was Michelle Obama:
Wednesday's schedule here.