Transparency and City Government Communications

This study advances the development of a transparency model for government communicators. Previous research conducted by Fairbanks et al. (2007) used indepth interviews of federal public information officers to develop a threedimensional model composed of ―valuing transparency,‖ ―organizational support,‖ ―communication practices‖ and ―provision of resources. ‖ This study develops a quantitative instrument to confirm the dimensions of the model and to predict which of the dimensions best predicts perceived governmental transparency at the city level. City Government Transparency 1 Transparency and City Government Communications A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. —James Madison This famous quote from James Madison articulates the popular belief that a democracy can’t survive without its citizens having access to information. In democracies, citizen trust in government is necessary for political leaders to make binding decisions and to commit resources to attain societal goals (Gamson, 1968). However, Americans are losing trust in the government. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, 75% of the American public believed that you could always or almost always trust the lawmakers and agencies in Washington to do what is right. According to the 10th edition of the Edelman Trust Barometer, this past year has been unlike any other. Only 30% of Americans trust the American Government to do what is right according to the 2009 Edleman Trust Barometer, down from 39% in 2008. The 2009 Edelman study also reports that in no country is government less trusted than in the United States. Increasing transparency has been heralded by several authors as one way to increase trust (see Edelman Trust Barometer, 2007; Golin, 2004; Public Relations Coalition, 2003; Savage, 2005). In a study of employees, Rawlins (2008) found that as the perception of organizational transparency increased, so did trust in the organization. If transparency plays a major role in an organization’s ability to obtain and maintain public trust, a profession that wants to be trusted by its publics needs to be transparent (Bunting, 2004). Transparency in government operations is also getting increased scrutiny. Although a relatively new subfield of study in public affairs, academic books and articles are helping to build a body of knowledge that defines, prescribes, and measures governmental transparency (see Fairbanks, Plowman & Rawlins, 2007; Florini, 2007; Hood & Heald 2006; Piotrowski, 2007; Roberts, 2006). This article seeks to add to that body of knowledge by quantitatively testing a model of governmental transparency developed by Fairbanks et al. (2007). To test the concurrent and predictive validity of the instrument, the results will be analyzed against another quantitative transparency measure developed by Rawlins (2009). Finally, this paper will apply these transparency measures at the city government level, which has been researched less frequently than the state and national levels. City Government Transparency 2 Literature Review Purposeful and concise communication between government and its citizens is a moral obligation as well as a pragmatic practice that originates from the very principles of democracy (Viteritti, 1997). Governmental transparency has been defined by Finel and Lord (1999) as the following: Transparency comprises the legal, political, and institutional structures that make information about the internal characteristics of a government and society available to actors both inside and outside the domestic political system. Transparency is increased by any mechanism that leads to the public disclosure of information, whether a free press, open government, hearings, or the existence of nongovernmental organizations with an incentive to release objective information about the government. (p. 316) According to Piotrowski (2007), ―Governmental transparency allows the public to develop a more accurate picture of what is happening inside a government‖ (p. 6). This allows publics to evaluate the performance of governmental agencies, hold them accountable, and answer concerns pertaining to management of public resources. Since people are affected by decisions made by governmental bodies, they have a right to know how the decisions were made. Balkin (1999) identified three primary purposes for transparency: providing essential information to publics, increasing public participation, and holding organizations accountable. These three purposes are reflected in Cotterrell’s (1999) definition of transparency: ―transparency is the availability of information on matters of public concern, the ability of citizens to participate in political decision, and the accountability of government to public opinion or legal processes‖ (p. 414). Rawlins (2009) developed a measurement tool that allows stakeholders to evaluate the transparency of an organization. A factor analysis of the questions used in the instruments resulted in a four-dimensional model of transparency that is remarkably similar to previous definitions. The four dimensions were participation, substantial information, accountability, and secrecy (a reverse item construct that represents the opposite of openness). The responsibility for sharing information that allows for more transparent governance falls squarely on the shoulders of public affairs, public information, and communications officials in governmental agencies. These communicators can be found in all governmental organizations at the national, state, and local levels. They have the obligation to keep publics informed, increase awareness of public policies and how they were created, facilitate feedback and two-way communication with publics, and use that information to improve agency performance and accountability (Avery et al. 1995; Garnett, 1997). J. Arthur Heise (1985) proposed a model for public communication to help government communicate more effectively with the many publics it serves. The model consists of five tenets. First, government officials needed to make publicly available all releasable information, whether it sheds a positive or negative light on the organization. This dissemination needs to be timely and completely accurate. Second, government officials need to communicate with their publics through the mass media and other channels to reach publics. Third, rather than continue City Government Transparency 3 to rely on a small group of politically active organizations and individuals for partial and biased feedback, government communicators need to develop better channels to gather perspectives and feedback from all of its constituent groups. Fourth, senior public officials should legitimately employ public resources and communication channels for the purpose of policy making, without bias toward electoral politics. Fifth, the implementation of the public communication approach needs to be the responsibility of top administrators who hold ommunicators responsible for the implementation of the agency’s communications policy. While developing a transparency model for government communications, Fairbanks et al. (2007) interviewed several federal government communicators and found that the majority recognized the need for and benefits of transparency and believed that it is essential to a functioning democracy. Although many government communicators valued transparency, the model posits that there were other factors that influence the practice, namely the communication practices of the agency, the organizational support for transparency, and whether there are adequate resources. Many communicators expressed concern about how to determine how much information to release. There was a fear of releasing too much information and that it was often safer to be more conservative with messages, unless there was strong organizational support for transparency. At the same time, transparency requires significant resources. Upkeep of Web pages, responding to requests, and working with media requires additional time, personnel and money. There is very little research on transparency at the city or municipal level. One exception, a study by Piotrowski and Van Ryzin (2007), found that citizens expect local governments to be transparent about their finances (budgets, bids, contracts, campaigns), public safety (crimes, health inspections, sex offenders), principles (knowing what the government is doing, public records and documents) and governance (open and not secretive, fighting corruption). Research Questions The existing literature on government transparency provides a robust definition that includes sharing substantial and useful information, citizen involvement, being accountable, and open to public scrutiny. Citizens expect their governments to be transparent about fiscal, safety, and policy issues that affect them. Government communicators value transparency, but their practice is affected by perceived organizational support, availability of communication tools, and provisions of resources. The Fairbanks et al. (2007) model provides a good framework to evaluate government transparency efforts. However, it was developed after exploratory research using qualitative interviews. The model hasn’t been tested with a quantitative method to confirm the impact of these dimensions on a larger, more representative, sample. This study created such an instrument and tested its concurrent validity with the dimensions of the Rawlins (2009) stakeholder measurement tool. To that end, the following four research questions and one hypothesis hope to be answered: RQ1: Can the three-dimensional model be tested quantitatively? RQ2: How do city communicators evaluate themselves on each of the four parts