How open data came to be in Calgary
At this today’s Regular Meeting of Council, Calgary City Council passed their Open Data Motion.
Obviously I’m beyond excited about the City of Calgary transitioning into a period of openness and accountability. Passing an open data motion should be seen as a gigantic step forward in rethinking how a government interacts with citizens and who really runs ‘the show’. The people.
I thought I’d take advantage of this moment to shine the light on how this motion came to be.
On May 27 I saw something come across the CBC Spark Twitter feed that caught my eye. Thanks to the wonders of the internet, in writing this post I am able to go back and see exactly what it said: “Just posted full interview with @andreareimer about open data, open source, and cities that think like the web: http://bit.ly/129Cox “. It was that bit about cities thinking like the web that interested me. What did it mean? So I clicked the link.
After listening to Nora Young’s interview with Vancouver city councilor Andrea Reimer I thought to myself, “Why can’t Calgary have something like that? What’s stopping us?” The next day on May 28 I had a coffee meeting with Calgary Alderman Joe Ceci and the former president of my community association. Following the meeting Joe offered me a ride to work downtown. We got to chatting and I mentioned the project Vancouver is undertaking. He was interested but it was nothing more than a conversation during a car ride. On June 6 I was having a coffee with Ald. Brian Pincott on Olympic Plaza to talk about ward boundaries and how things had gone so wrong. Hoping to introduce something of a little more hopeful tone to the conversation I mentioned the Spark interview and the Vancouver Open Government project. He too was interested.
Somewhere in there I came up with the ludicrous idea that I should get these two aldermen to talk with their Vancouver counterpart. And it just so happened that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was meeting in Whistler the next week. Knowing both Ald. Ceci and Ald. Pincott were attending I contacted Cllr. Reimer via Twitter. She too was attending. So I sent the three an email saying they should get together while in Whistler. (I also attempted to include Cllr. Don Iverson of Edmonton, but as he just had a baby he told me he would not be attending. We talked more about the project however when I drove up to Edmonton to attend TransitCamp on May 30. Edmonton, as it turned out, followed Vancouver and Calgary’s lead and actually got their open data motion passed months ago.)
After a couple friendly emails over the next couple weeks I found out they did not get a chance to meet up with Cllr. Reimer in Whistler but Ald. Ceci met with another Vancouver councilor. Toward the end of June Ald. Ceci and Pincott had met with the city’s IT department and the text of a motion was being drafted.
On November 17 I heard from Heather Reed-Fenske, the City’s Manager, eGovernment Strategy with some of the direction they were heading with the research for the report. She wanted to chat to update me and gain any insight I might have around the issue. On December 18 we met for coffee; where she joked she had been in her job for all of one week when City Council passed the notice of motion I recommended, she’d been working on almost nothing since, and thus hated me. We talked about several different things that other jurisdictions have done and I’m happy to see much of our conversation was incorporated into the final report.
The Report was being prepared for December 2009, but Heather and her team asked for an extension to the February 10 meeting of the Standing Policy Committee on Finance and Corporate Services where it was to be debated, edited and (hopefully) recommended to move to Council for a full vote. They needed the extra time to do more research. As I told Heather at the time: “It’s okay. It’s not a race, it’s a marathon. Just finishing is what’s important.” As February approached Ald. Pincott and Ceci realized they would both be in Ottawa for a conference that week and so asked for another delay until March 10 because, as the movers of the original motion, all agreed they should be in attendance.
The March 10 meeting was painful for me to watch. I had to be at work that morning and could only get away from my desk for an hour from 10am to 11am. This meant I missed the public input window and arrived in time for the last two thirds of the debate and the vote – which passed with only Ald. Chabot, Connelly, and Hodges against. It was painful because I just wanted to jump up and answer all the aldermen’s questions. Instead I had to rely on the answers of Heather and her boss – both relative newcomers to the issues surrounding open data. I knew I couldn’t answer questions about the City’s implementation of open data nearly as well as they could, but there were many other questions about what other jurisdictions have done and what the purpose of open data was that I could have answered that would have helped. (For example, one major issue brought up by more than one alderman was around the risk of hackers. What they did not understand is that open data eliminates the need for the majority of hacking because open data is giving the information away. Not to mention open data 1.0 does not open a portal to actual databases. All the information pulled for a data catalogue is exported information with no additional danger of a hacker access to the database.) I wished I would have been able to give them a streamlined version of the open data presentation I did at DemoCamp on January 26.
After all that the motion came to council today and following another debate, which I understand was once again fraught with misunderstanding about what open data is and what it does, it passed with a vote of 10 to 4 with Ald Hodges, Connelly, Fox-Mellway & Chabot voting against it. (Mar was absent.)
I know this might sound a little corny, but I’m elated at this moment. After almost one full year of work, today a motion brought forward by a single citizen passed City Council. A motion that could be the beginning of forever changing the way the City of Calgary thinks about the way it interacts with citizens and how democracy can work in Cowtown.
THAT is a big deal.
And I’m happy to have been able to play my small part in the process.
I can’t wait to play a part in the next steps of the process too.
A collection of my previous posts on open data coming to Calgary:
Open Data presentation at DemoCamp
Calgary open data report delayed
Open Government starts to expose what’s in the shadows
Brian Pincott on Open Data at Calgary City Hall
Help ensure Calgary’s “Open City” initiative is framed in the right light
Calgary Municipal Election: 2010 will be a year of new faces
2010 is going to be a year of sweeping change at Calgary’s City Hall.
If you’ve been paying attention to the papers these past couple years you’ll know there is a deep seeded frustration among Calgarians with their current council. And with that frustration has come the hope for something better. (Affectionately referred to as “hope-y change-y stuff” by Fox News commentator Sarah Palin.)
But will the public get the change they have cried for? To do this, half of council would need to change. Given Calgary City Council’s average turnover, 2007 saw a “lot” of change when three incumbents were defeated and one retired. However four is a long way from a majority of new faces, and that is something that has not happened in a very long time. As a matter of fact, only five of the current 15 council members were not sitting in their same seat in 2001. That’s not much change over the last decade.
However 2010 may just be shaping up to the year it actually happened.
First Dave Bronconnier announced that he will not be seeking another term. Then two days ago Bob Hawkesworth, who first became an alderman in 1980, announced he would be doing the same and stepping away from his aldermanic seat.
I realize this is only two incumbents stepping aside and does not look good for the prospect of “change”, but despite the Calgary Herald yesterday announcing “all other aldermen have indicated they will be on a ward ballot this fall” I think we may see a couple others stepping aside before nomination day arrives.
To begin with, not all aldermen have formally announced their intentions. I would not be surprised to see one or two more announce they will be retiring from politics. According the City’s website Dale Hodges has held his aldermanic seat since 1983. Meanwhile Joe Ceci and Linda Fox-Mellway have been aldermen for fifteen years and Ray Jones has been warming a chair for seventeen years. Gord Lowe is now 71 – the oldest on council – and may be looking to slow down. All of these council members I would estimate are potentials to step down still.
At the same time we know Ald. Ric McIver is almost certain to throw his hat in the ring for mayor. Assuming this happens, this is one guaranteed new face on council. Joe Connelly has positioned himself well for a run at the mayoral seat as well. At the same time Diane Colley-Urquhart has been rumoured to be thinking about it too (although no one has come forward with evidence she is seriously considering it yet).
If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that there may be five members of the current 15 members of council that will choose not to run in their current position come September. That alone would represent more change than we’ve seen in a very long time. Heck even 2001, the last year the incumbent mayor did not run, there were only five new faces on council following the election!
If we factor in the same amount of turnover as the 2007 election in the form of frustration aimed at the current council, it is very possible, albeit not probable, we could be seeing a majority of newbies come October 19. Even if this doesn’t happen, we will still be seeing more turnover in one go round than many of us can remember.
Now for the big question: will it be good turnover? The kind that alleviates Calgarians’ frustrations? Stay tuned to find out.
This post has been cross posted to The Best Political Team in the Blogosphere. Check it out for all your coverage of the 2010 Calgary Municipal Election.
Bronconnier will not run again; so who will?
So Dave Bronconnier has just announced he will be stepping down from the mayor’s chair and handing over his oversized mayoral necklace (does that thing have an actual name?) come October 2010. He will not be running for re-election.
While it is possible we could spend some time reflecting on our 35th mayor’s tenure – after all he’s been mayor of Calgary since 2001, having been elected three times, and before that was alderman of ward 6 for nine years as well – the real fun lays in what this means for the candidates that have been mulling about the starting line of the mayoral race for the past year or so.
Bronco’s announcement today almost guarentees Joe Connolly and Ric McIver will run for mayor, but who else? Will Alnoor Kassam now return for another kick at the can? Could we see Diane Colley-Urqhart or Druh Farrell step up in the coming months?
Personally, my guess is you’ll see one one Brian Pincott, who is currently ward 11 alderman, or frequent civic commenter Naheed Nenshi step up and take a serious run.
Either way, things just got interesting. Tie on your sneakers, because the race is about to begin.
On your marks, get set, GO!
Open Government starts to expose what’s in the shadows
Ald. Ceci and Ald. Pincott’s notice of motion regarding open data becoming the standard at the City of Calgary passed this morning with only a couple amendments. One amendment was regarding cost of making the data available and another was asking for the City’s legal departments input. Both very good amendments in my opinion. The motion asked for a report on the feasibility of opening up the City’s data to the public from Administration to be completed and we should see it in December 2009.
I suggested the open data project to Ceci and Pincott in the first place is because it is one very simple way for the City to open up and become more transparent. This is what Open Government is all about.
In this day and age where we see dropping percentages of people who vote, and fatigue over partisan bickering, it strikes me that it is time to remind citizens who’s in charge and why the City exists in the first place.
Cities were of course created for one reason only: to make the lives of their citizens better.
So a group of engaged citizens in the 19th century stood up and said ‘if you wish, we will set the direction for how our City can make our lives better’. The rest of the population responded by holding an election to determine which citizens best characterize the direction they would like to see their city go, and the result was a group who immediately got to the business of making their city a better place to live.
They did this by hiring people to work projects on behalf of the citizens. They set policy and safety standards and generally did the job they were elected to do. Citizens watched and judged their accomplishments – letting them know when they agreed and when they disagreed. Every few years the population got a chance to change their representative if they felt it was necessary. And the building continued.
However at some point in time the elected individuals as well as the people they hired ended up hidden in the shadow of the behemoth organization they created in the name of making the lives of citizens better. Issues became more and more complex as more and more issues fall to their plates for solutions. More and more people were hired, more and more details were added. The entire undertaking became incredibly hard for the average citizen to follow, to judge and provide input on. This, unfortunately, is the government we have today.
Open Government is about using new technologies to shine the light on what is happening on our behalf. It is meant to turn back the clock and give the average citizen a way to be involved again.
Open Data is one small step in that direction; because, it is important to note, the data in our government’s possession is collected on behalf of us with a goal of making our lives better.
We, the citizens, own that information and we have every right to access it.
This brings me to today’s motion. I was hopeful that all aldermen would see this motion as a positive step toward opening up our government and not allowing individuals to live in the shadows – either on purpose or by accident. I truly thought we would see a unanimous vote of approval for looking into the practicality of open data for the City of Calgary. So I was surprised to see two aldermen vote to keep the citizens they supposedly represent at bay. Two aldermen who wanted to keep the City’s work in the shadows.
I’m extremely disappointed in Ald. Chabot and Ald. Connelly for not even entertaining the possibility of allowing the citizens of our city to better know the work they – and those they’ve hired – are doing on our behalf.
Security, privacy and legality concerns are all real need to be looked and more than likely addressed. This report will do that. So why not just SEE what the possibilities are instead of regressing back into the shadows?
Today’s motion was just the beginning of shining the light on the shadows and it shone directly on Chabot and Connelly. They have been exposed.
And just like my opinion of open data in general: what the citizens might do with this newly exposed information is what really excites me.
Connelly: let’s do the Plan It process over. And this time have no goals.
Talk about jumping the gun! Alderman Joe Connelly has decided, despite the fact calls for a Developer Panel to discuss Plan It targets are already outlined in the omnibus list of 76 (or so) amendments to Plan It sent to administration two weeks ago, that what they need is a Developer Panel. And he’s making a motion to get things going now, instead of waiting for Administration to digest what they were just sent.
Here’s the text of his motion:
WHEREAS the Plan-It project has produced a visionary document which will establish the “blueprint” for growth and transportation for the next 60 years with an impact on our city that cannot be understated;
AND WHEREAS the assumptions in the Plan-It document suggest a significant change in consumer and commuting behaviors which may or may not occur;
AND WHEREAS the measure outlined in the Plan-It document were seen to be too prescriptive and, in some cases, impossible to achieve;
AND WHEREAS given the challenges of predicting the future, a prudent and cautious approach to the Plan-It strategy should be employed.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the measures being prescribed in the Plan-It document be removed and be developed in the implementation phase of the project.
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that a committee of industry stakeholders be struck to determine by consensus, measures that can realistically be achieved together with an implementation strategy and make recommendations to Council through the Standing Policy Committee on Land Use Planning and Transportation by 2009 December 09.
I was made aware of Ald Connelly’s motion yesterday in a phone call from Metro Calgary. They asked for my opinion on it. What they basically mentioned to me was Connelly was looking to set up the Developer Panel. You can read my comments in their article but I wanted to go into a little more depth here. (Sound bites only provide so much explanation.)
I had three points to Metro:
- I agree with Ald. Connelly, we need to get the targets right. This is an important document that helps set out the future of our city. I don’t think anyone wants to delay it any longer than need be. Let’s get on with the process of ‘doing’ already.
- After more than a year of public consultation (where hundreds of citizens provided their feedback) and a week of public hearings (where almost 200 people signed up to speak to council in the middle of a work day) what more could anyone possibly have to say? If that is not enough time for them to have had their say, how much time would ever be enough?
- If the development industry did not feel they were given a voice, shouldn’t every other citizen be in the same boat? Why create a panel represented by only one industry? I believe it was Ald. Farrell who said during the hearings that if a panel absolutely had to be struck – thereby admitting the consultation the City has undertaken for the past year was not good enough and that one group of citizens IS more important than another – then there were several developers on the pro-side (such as the developer of Garrison Woods) and many other intelligent citizens (such as Chris Turner and Neil Keough) with exceeding knowledge of such things, who would have a lot to add to that discussion and should be included on the panel.
In short, how many times does council need to do the same thing over and over and over again? Let’s finish the process we’ve already started instead of beginning a new one.
However, what the folks from Metro didn’t tell me was the first part of Connelly’s resolution: that the targets be scraped and be created during the implementation phase. This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a while, and I can’t help but want to laugh and cry at the same time.
What would be the POINT of creating a visionary document, laying out the future growth of the city of Calgary, that does not have any measures indicating how we would do that?! That would be like going on a diet without changing your eating habits or ever stepping on a scale to see if you’re losing weight. (Strangely enough some would argue this would be similar to the odd council plan that has come before and is part of the reason we are on the current issue-riddled path.)
How does one even set goals while already implementing a project? I can’t imagine having built the fence in my backyard without having a plan first. “Let’s just start building a fence and see where it ends up. Once we’re done we can decide if we should have had a goal before we started.”
On the topics of asinine ideas and doing only what the development industry wants, I’m reminded of a comment made by one of the presenters during the Plan It public hearings that went something like this: The development industry tells us they build only what the people of Calgary want. Studies have shown what we want is un-sustainable and will eventually cause taxes to skyrocket or potentially the City to go broke. There are solutions, but when the developers keep offering us the cause of the problem, we’re going to take it because we want it. It is like offering a child a bowl of ice cream for breakfast. They’ll take the bowl of ice cream every day, unless a responsible adult steps in and helps them make the healthy decision – the right decision for the child’s future.
PS – I don’t think the development industry is evil like many on the pro-side of Plan It. For an alternate point of view, where I defend the development industry’s rightful hesitations, see my Think! Alberta posts.
Subscribe
-
Like Minded
