OMB Watch and the Sunlight Foundation today released an open letter to the U.S. Senate supporting continued funding for the Electronic Government Fund's important transparency projects. The letter echoes the Obama administration's policy statement issued Nov. 10.

The letter calls for full funding for the E-Gov Fund, which pays for flagship projects such as USAspending.gov and Data.gov. In April, Congress short-sightedly slashed the E-Gov Fund by 75 percent, from $34 million to $8 million, drastically reducing the fund’s ability to maintain current transparency tools or develop new ones. The House Appropriations Committee has proposed a slight increase for the fund next year, but Senate appropriators proposed an additional cut.

The Senate proposal may now be moving toward a floor vote as part of the second so-called "minibus" of spending bills packaged with H.R. 2354. We're hopeful that senators will take this opportunity to reverse the cuts that Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and a coalition of open government groups called "penny-wise and pound-foolish."

In addition to the drastic spending cuts, the bill contains another provision that would endanger the effectiveness of the E-Gov Fund. Both the House and the Senate proposals would eliminate the E-Gov Fund as a separate budget line, instead combining it with the Federal Citizen Services Fund to create a new "Information and Engagement for Citizens" account. Although the same office in the General Services Administration (GSA) oversees both funds, they have separate purposes and authorizations. Specifically, the E-Government Act of 2002 created the E-Gov Fund and detailed its functions and procedures, including requirements to report on how the funds are being spent and what results are being achieved. These reporting requirements increase the transparency and accountability of the E-Gov Fund – but they might not apply to a new budget line not authorized by any law.

At a time when Congress is scrounging for every last penny, it would be counterproductive to cut short the very tools that shed light on federal spending and performance. Congress should provide adequate resources for the E-Gov Fund in order to give the American people the transparency they deserve.

It's been 48 days since the Super Committee's last public meeting on Sept. 8 (and over a month passed between the Super Committee's second and third public hearings). For those of us who have been watching the Super Committee since day one, eagerly awaiting information on the specifics of its proposal for cutting $1.5 trillion dollars from the federal deficit, 48 days of radio silence not only has us on edge, it also has us questioning the Super Committee's commitment to transparency and the democratic process.

In early August, when President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (aka the debt ceiling deal) into law, he also approved the creation of a 12-member Super Committee charged with finding $1.5 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. In response, OMB Watch joined other public interest groups in demanding transparency from the Super Committee. We created SuperCommitteeWatch.org as a clearinghouse for information about the committee and its pending deficit-reduction proposal, and we wrote up a list of specific transparency asks. We asked for access to:

• Live and archived webcasts of all meetings and hearings
• Witness lists and hearing agendas
• Proposals and supporting documentation
• A means to collect and aggregate public feedback and reactions to the proposals being considered

Despite the requests of the open government community, we've seen only one public meeting and three public hearings (the third held yesterday). While we acknowledge that the Super Committee has taken initiative by archiving videos of the hearings on their official website, we can't help but feel disappointed at what little effort they've made thus far to include the American people in their decision-making process. Considering the effect the final proposal will have on the lives of Americans nationwide, we think the nation deserves Super Committee transparency on a much larger scale.

Reporters at The New York Times attempted on Tuesday to give us a progress report on the Super Committee's activities. Most of what they managed to uncover, however, were vague references to an apparent stalemate between parties from anonymous sources.

With a Nov. 23 deadline looming over them, the Super Committee is in need of a solution to their apparent stalemate. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told The New York Times that the members of the Super Committee are "no more autonomous than your left thumb. They need some guidance from the White House and from the leadership of Congress."

Here's an idea – how about some guidance from the American people? The Los Angeles Times reported that the Super Committee has received more than 180,000 recommendations from "lawmakers, advocacy groups and ordinary Americans." We'd like to know exactly what these recommendations are, who is making them, and whether or not the committee is taking them into account as they work toward a deficit-reduction plan.

We urge the Super Committee to make public these recommendations, as well as more of its meetings between now and Nov. 23. Let the American people weigh in on what revenue options or spending cuts they'd like to see. Allow them to actively participate in the decisions that will, no doubt, have a huge impact on their lives. Restore some credibility to our democracy. Help the American people participate in their own governance.

If you're interested in getting involved, our colleagues at the Sunlight Foundation have organized a great way for you to have your voice heard. Join them as they "Haunt the House" on October 31. They'll be heading to Super Committee members' offices all around the country to remind them who they work for, and they want you to be there!

The Super Committee has 27 days until its final proposal is due. Let's hope these next 27 days are more transparent than the last 48.

Yesterday, OMB Watch submitted its recommendations for the Obama administration's national plan for the Open Government Partnership (OGP). The administration will unveil its plan, with new concrete commitments to increase transparency, at the international OGP meeting on Sept. 20.

Seven other countries will also announce their national open government plans at that summit, organized around the United Nations General Assembly meeting. For the U.S. as well as the other participants, OGP has been an impetus to action for transparency. The national plan to be released in September is an important opportunity for the administration to expand on its progress in strengthening open government in order to empower Americans and build a better democracy.

In blog posts on Aug. 8 and Aug. 22, the administration asked for feedback on six topics to inform the development of its national plan. Reforms in these areas, including improving federal websites and promoting corporate accountability, would constitute a positive agenda for the U.S. Open Government Plan.

Our comments offer recommendations on each of the six topics. Among the ideas offered, OMB Watch encouraged the administration to:

1. Transform Regulations.gov into a one-stop shop for citizens to learn about rulemaking
2. Establish federal website standards that encourage proactive disclosure, identification of public priorities, and visualization tools
3. Improve Data.gov with common data formats, identifiers, and user-friendly interfaces
4. Strengthen records management with smarter IT investments and email policy
5. Make regulatory compliance information more user-friendly
6. Promote corporate accountability with better disclosure

In addition to these comments, OMB Watch has consulted with the administration on other topics that would make excellent contributions to the U.S. Open Government Plan. Meaningful reforms to the six consultation topics would be a significant step forward, but we hope that the administration will consider additional initiatives as well. For instance, the White House could establish an award, similar to the SAVE Award, to recognize the best contributions to open government by federal employees. Such an award could be an important way to foster a culture of openness within government and would be a helpful complement to the policy reforms the administration is considering.

We invite readers to join the discussion by sending their thoughts on the six topics by email to opengov@ostp.gov.

The administration yesterday rolled out the awaited next phase of public consultations for its Open Government Partnership (OGP) action plan. The announcement asked for comments on three specific issues where the administration could make worthwhile gains on transparency.

The United States is scheduled to release its action plan, with concrete commitments to increase transparency, in September. Under OGP, a global initiative launched in July, countries have to solicit public consultation while developing their plans.

To date, the administration has held several invited meetings with open government experts to discuss potential commitments for the U.S. plan. Yesterday's announcement opened the consultation to the broader public. The White House blog post asks for public comment on three topics:

• How can regulations.gov, one of the primary mechanisms for government transparency and public participation, be made more useful to the public rulemaking process?
• OMB is beginning the process of reviewing and potentially updating its Federal Web Policy. What policy updates should be included in this revision to make Federal websites more user-friendly and pertinent to the needs of the public?
• How can we build on the success of Data.Gov and encourage the use of democratized data to build new consumer-oriented products and services?

The post invites the public to email their suggestions to the White House. The post doesn't specify a deadline for comments, but as the U.S. is expected to release its plan in mid-September, sooner will be better for commenting.

The announcement states that the administration will publish additional posts on its OGP plan over the next month, but doesn't detail a schedule or what topics future posts might address. Finally, the post states that the administration will post a summary of the comments it receives.

It's positive that the administration is preparing an OGP action plan and is soliciting feedback on what commitments it should undertake. As we wrote previously, the U.S. action plan "could include innovative and meaningful steps forward," and we're hopeful that it will. The three topics identified so far by the administration are sound places to start and could lead to valuable increases in transparency.

At the same time, it's hard not to feel that the administration is cutting corners on public participation in developing the plan. The OGP roadmap lays out clear standards for public consultation, which the administration still hasn't met. In particular, countries are supposed to detail the consultation's timeline and to publish all the comments it receives, not just a summary. The administration should do so, to bolster the consultation process and to set a strong example for the other countries participating in OGP.