I hope you are well.
Here is a Google Jamboard from the first OGN Meetup:
JAMBOARD OGN Meet ONE 8th Oct 2020.pdf (364.0 KB)
It is well worth a look as the points made by attendees were excellent throughout.
There were also the first signs of how we could start to work collectively both to help each other in our respective areas and to grow our overall influence.
My own reflection was that as the conversation progressed, it became clear that there needs to be a two-pronged approach: that we work with government (civil service) to progress the open government agenda, but simultaneously become more effective at calling out when the principles of open government are flagrantly ignored. To paraphrase one attendee: we need to to work on the inside, but also make noise on the outside.
And that for both of these strands to be impactful, we must focus on specific aspects of the open government agenda.
But please read the Jamboard. And if you were not able to attend please share your thoughts below. It really was an excellent and inspiring get-together so thank you to all who made it so.
On to the next, a date has been set for Wednesday 11th at 11:30 a.m until 12:30 pm.
Please click here to register and confirm your place.
Tell your friends / colleagues too. And let’s keep the conversation going to evolve some of the ideas from the first OGN Meetup into actions.
Open Government Network
Thanks for this – great to see the harvest from this. Hoping to join the next session so looking forward to participating.
Some of the reflections on the 2-pronged approach made me think of this recent blog that really resonated for me from the Scottish Community Alliance:
Really good piece on whether it’s better to be inside working to influence (but moderating language and becoming complicit in things not changing) OR better to be outside able to push harder for change but risk of nothing happening as you’re not ‘in’:
“So, judgment – the essential leadership skill in my view – is needed. We need to carefully consider when to act, when to be bold or even to be angry. Pick our battles, be savvy in our relationship building and win the arguments and hopefully we can: ‘build back better’.”
Thoughtful piece on influencing change but also not going completely ‘outside’! The role of a network of ‘internal’ allies in this journey can also be really useful.
Take care everyone,
Hit send too early!
Another inside/out article which I like: https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,bruce-adamson-if-we-dont-think-we-can-deliver-an-adequate-standard-of-living-to-children-thats-saying-something-really-worrying_10338.htm
In terms of the ‘calling out’ but also partnering in the solution (and a great example of sticking to some key non-negotiable principles) I was impressed by the response from the Wellbeing Economy Alliance to the Economic Recovery Group in Scotland’s report:
https://wellbeingeconomy.org/weall-scotlands-initial-response-to-the-scottish-governments-economic-recovery-report. 3 great points stood out for me:
We welcome the ‘four pillars’ approach laid out in the report, which gives business, people, community, and the environment balanced priority. This is an important step to designing a wellbeing economy, although a true wellbeing economy approach goes one step further to say that business and economic activity must be designed to serve people and planet, not thrive alongside them. A wellbeing economy is one that is purposed and designed explicitly for human and ecological wellbeing – economic activity in service of these higher order goals. To truly initiate a wellbeing economy, the restructure must be designed to enable people and planet to flourish while being agnostic to economic growth, not dependent on it.
Conflating business with the economy in the four pillars seems to miss the vital role of unpaid role of care and social reproduction in families and communities in supporting the market economy. This would be a serious blind spot for a country where the gender equality discussion is better than in other localities.
We are also concerned at the extent to which a desire for ‘growth’ still features prominently in the report’s language. What kind of growth? And for whom? Simply adding ‘inclusive’ and ‘sustainable’ modifiers to growth does not answer either of these vital questions.
Whilst I’m here, and save you all receiving another email notification from my posts I really like the point about training made in the jam board – some skills and capacity-building in govt is a key element rather than relying on people who naturally ‘get it’. I know there is a call from some of the human rights collectives in the UK on embedding HR training in staff if there is an expectation of policy-making through a particular lens so could be similar for OG principles.
Thank you for both of these posts @HannahDickson
Really interesting insights. The Bruce Adamson article is very interesting.