Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
69 lines (59 loc) · 4.95 KB

open-data-legislation-implementation.md

File metadata and controls

69 lines (59 loc) · 4.95 KB
Raw
layout permalink title
default
/open-data-legislation-implementation
Open Data Legislation Implementation

Principals

  • Open Data Legislation must cover just enough detail to establish a framework that the open data implementation can be built upon
  • Open Data Legislation is required to make permanent good management practices and policy, so a change in leadership does not change the open data implementation

Framework

  • Define terms
  • Define Leadership
  • Statewide Uniform Accounting Procedures verses Municipal Independence
  • Publishing Data timing and frequency
  • Compliance with Quantity and Quality of Data ( 5 by 5)
  • Influence of other reporting standards (Audits, CAFR)
  • Customer Service

Terms

Leadership

  • Open Data implementations require leadership. There must be an empowered, technically experienced individual or group to keep the open data law true to the policy ideals. Ohio has proposed a board, while California has proposed a data officer that reports to the governor.
  • Data Board or Data Officer leadership is accountable for
    • Categories of records are public records by default. Need to set a baseline that all departments can start from.
    • Recommend technology standards. These will be minimum requirements so extra work is not generated. Ability to export records in TXT format with recommended metadata headers. Open data system able to support exporting data through API using shared key. Commercial vendor product and open source project options with some high level recommendation of staffing requirements.
    • Recommend accounting standards. Utilizing the state accounting system is recommended. Otherwise there must be a minimum set of common terms and fields that the state and municipalities can agree on. These accounting standards set the baseline for reporting and publishing.
    • Recommend metadata standards. The metadata at a minimum define the field headers for the accounting standard fields.
    • Collaboration and participation with open government open data organizations such as data.gov (Federal GSA), Open Data Initiative, What Works Cities (Sunlight Foundation), and Data Coalition. Encourage representatives to hold board seats, participate in strategy discussions, and help to keep on top of evolving new options.
    • Make annual recommendations with updates
    • Meet at least 6 times per year with published agendas and meeting results. Follow Robert's rules?
    • Carrot or Stick: Either grant annual funds for annual participation with state open data system or create a certification system that allows publishing for annual compliance.
  • An archivist or librarian is accountable for the data publishing. The publishing process must be transparent and not require data modification.
  • Open Data Leadership sets the minimum quality, quantity, and frequency standards. The state departments and municipalities must at least mean the minimum to retain their certification and the ability to be published on the state open data portal.
  • Audits and CAFR reporting TBD

State Standards verses Municipal Independence

  • Who owns the Data? The group creating the data
    • Responsible to display
    • The state provides aggregation and added value
    • Who get called for errors?

Publishing

Quantity and Quality

Additional Reporting Standards

Implementation Costs and Savings

  • Review of likely impacts that can be used to justify open data legislation
  • competitive bidding driving standardization. If every new technology contract is a snowflake, then every job will be expensive and slow. Standardization of open data terms, fields, accounting methods, and publishing schedules will allow vendors to create products that can be sold to multiple customers. This will drive down costs.
    • identify example Ohio single technology contracts as examples here
    • analysis of one time costs that could have been eliminated with standards
    • report on likely average cost savings for Ohio technology contracts
  • reducing costs through automation [yearly audits, FOIA requests]
    • identify example and average Ohio municipal annual audit costs
    • identify example municipal FOIA requests
    • report on likely costs savings by open data automation replacing these activities
  • driving down the cost of local governments. The smaller municipalities have no buying power with vendors. As the larger organizations drive standardization, the smaller municipalities will benefit with options that did not exist before.
    • identify example small Ohio municipalities that do not have standard financial systems
    • report the likely cost savings between implementing a one off financial system compared to a standardized financial system from above

Customer Service

  • Treasury Office outreach going to city offices and conferences

  • Treasury office customer service focus

  • Longer term to benefit your customer

  • Organize city open data policies to bolster the state open data legislation

  • Outreach to sources of data is a big part of what they do. Education

    revision 0.2