Andrea Di MaioOver the weekend I followed and took part in an interesting conversation on Facebook started by a vendor in the education content business, who was complaining about a lack of transparency in a proposal selection process performed by the Department
of Education.
In July 2010 the Department had invited a number of vendors at a meeting where they had been encouraged to submit innovative proposals to support K-12 schools. This vendor presented proposals, based on eight different types of technology, but did not get any feedback and then made them available to schools that wanted to apply for funding.
In December, when the schools selected for funding were made known, none of those using the vendor’s proposed technologies was in the list. The vendor was clearly disappointed and tried to understand how the selection had been made.
What struck me was that, in support to his claim that the selection had not been sufficiently transparent, the vendor shared on Facebook the link to the personal web site of a government executive who would have been involved in the proposal selection. The web site showed that the political orientations of this executive were very different from those of the vendor and were expressed in a quite violent tone.
The vendor’s claim suggested not only a lack of transparency but also a possible bias. However the latter was derived from accessing information shared by the executive as a personal resource: in fact the content of the web site is largely independent of the executive’s role, and only his bio carries reference to his previous role (he is now retired) and his political positions.
This is a great example of how social media can be a double-edged sword for government organizations. While it can be used to better inform and engage prospective vendors for public procurement or funding purposes, it can also be used by disgruntled proposers to suggest bias in the process. Should the government executive have been more careful before posting his political views? Or should this be deemed as totally irrelevant, as everybody has the freedom to express his positions? I do not know what the code of conduct recites for him, and he is now a retired employee.
But for sure the impact of the blurring boundaries between personal and professional roles on social media is far from being fully discovered.
Category: social networks in government Tags: government 2.0
9 responses so far ↓
1 Tweets that mention When Social Media Can Hurt Government -- Topsy.com January 31, 2011 at 6:48 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andrea DiMaio, Glenn Donithan, UK Technology News, Digital Society, Sergio Agostinelli and others. Sergio Agostinelli said: RT @AndreaDiMaio: When Social Media Can Hurt Government – http://bit.ly/gYyFOL #gov20 #opengov [...]
2 Kristy Fifelski January 31, 2011 at 6:50 am
A best practice for policies on private use of social media by government staff would include that employees’ profiles should meet the standards of workplace rules of conduct. Taken from our own policy, violations of these standards would include offensiveness, disparaging comments, untruthful statements, demeaning behavior, nude or obscene pictures and/or video, and illegal substance use.
If the former employee simply identified his political party in the FB field that requests this information, he is not exhibiting a behavior that would inappropriately represent his Department. However, if the individual is engaging in offensive or disparaging politically charged comments, it could possibly have been grounds for management review IF the individual were still working for the agency.
3 orestisf January 31, 2011 at 6:51 am
As long as the personal web site is clearly non affiliated with the executive’s job, i feel that the vendor’s claim doesn’t have any grounds.
We cannot expect from people working for Government to sacrifice their freedom of expression.
On the other hand, the executive’s Department should be able to adequately explain the reasons for the selected proposals – in my view, the Department is in more trouble and facing a crisis, than the executive.
4 MarkM January 31, 2011 at 7:22 am
Why do we give a damn about the rights of the Public Service Executive? Every public servant knows that they must carry out the policies of the government of the day – regardless of their own political persuasion or views – and that they are also answerable to the public via the Minister and the Parliament for the expenditure of public funds.
So, surely the key issue for each tender committee member is to choose the best product(s) for the schools, and not to allow perceptions of political bias influence the decision-making. If there is even a hint of impropriety in the tender process, then a new tender must called, and a new committee made up of different members convened.
If this particular public sector Executive was stupid enough to express private political opinions in a public forum like Facebook, then the onus is on the Department to show why the tender should not be cancelled immediately, and the Executive asked to “Please Explain”.
I am all for every public servant having access to, and posting comments on, sites like Facebook and Twitter. However, they have to remember who employs them, and under what conditions they are engaged. If they want to make political comments, they should go work in the private or community sectors.
5 Robert January 31, 2011 at 9:21 am
From the description it sounds like the schools made proposals to DoE. Does the particular vendor know if their product/service was even bid? Even if their product/service were included in a bid there could be other aspects of the bid that were deficient. Until the these points are understood going after someone is scapegoating. Unfortunately its easier to claim bias and it gets publicity. Government hates that type of publicity so they work on the bias issue. In the world today if you have to explain an unpopular position (the government office might actually be right) you are already lost. Basically, an explanation does not fit into a headline. There does not appear to be any incentive for news media to dig into an issue instead of reporting the conflict.
6 Media Point » When Social Media Can Hurt Government January 31, 2011 at 11:09 am
[...] Read more: When Social Media Can Hurt Government [...]
7 When Social Media Can Hurt Government | Media Point January 31, 2011 at 11:10 am
[...] More here: When Social Media Can Hurt Government [...]
8 When Social Media Can Hurt Government « Media Point January 31, 2011 at 11:36 am
[...] When Social Media Can Hurt Government Written on January 31st, 2011 & filed under Media Tags: better-inform, funding-purposes, [...]
9 Tom Tuerff January 31, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Anything you post stands the possibility of being forever preserved online. I wonder, however, if the vendor had done any research prior to submitting his proposal. Had he done that he may have been able to ascertain the general opinion of the board member regarding the types of services the vendor was offering, and saved himself some frustration at the very least.