Theories abound as to how we should organize ourselves to deal effectively with contemporary governance challenges. There is a great deal of interest in “new governance” and other similar approaches, which tout the benefits of increasing citizen participation and government transparency and accountability. As one scholar colorfully puts it, today there is “nearly universal veneration of open government as a political idea,” making transparency “the sweet elixir of contemporary governance.” President Obama’s rhetoric certainly embraces these objectives. As candidate, Obama supported “creat[ing] a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America’s citizens.” On his first day in office, he signed a series of memos extolling and embracing the themes of citizen participation and government transparency and accountability.
This Article examines an innovative governance mechanism–the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (“CEC”) citizen submissions process–which incorporates “new governance”-type features that many theorists believe will assist in the effort to “break the logjam” in environmental policy and implementation. The process expands opportunities for public involvement in governance by creating a new mechanism that citizens may use to raise concerns about the effectiveness of government enforcement policies and practices. It operates as a “soft-law,” “spotlighting” instrument that is intended to enhance government accountability and transparency. Thus, lessons gleaned from studying this process can potentially inform discussions about central features of governance, including the appropriate roles for different actors and instrument choice. In short, the successes and challenges of the process should be of special interest to those interested in governance mechanisms intended to advance government transparency and accountability and opportunities for citizen involvement.
The CEC process also deserves careful study because, as a practical matter, the procedure “continues to be a model” for U.S. regional trade agreements. Thus, insights from the experience with the procedure promise to contribute to “on the ground” formulation of policy and process design.
In addition, some sophisticated observers have characterized the process as “very popular” with environmental advocates and citizen groups. Study of the process therefore would seem particularly likely to yield important insights about what works, in addition to lessons about ways to improve.
As a former Director of the CEC citizen submissions process, I would be pleased to be able to laud the process as an innovative experiment to enhance citizen participation, “reasoned transparency,” and accountability in the operation of government, especially since many observers have hailed the process as the most important feature of the CEC and as a model for other agreements. But while I think the process has produced some successes, I am not so sanguine about the process–particularly its track record (or reception) to date; its prospects for the future (unless adjustments are made of the type I discuss below); or its value as a model for other citizen-driven “reasoned transparency” and accountability processes. In part, this Article is intended as a cautionary note about challenges in creating new governance structures that empower citizens and make government more transparent and also offer specific “fixes” to strengthen the CEC process in the short term as well as a conceptual framework for reconsidering the appropriate focus and structure of citizen submissions processes to enhance their effectiveness. My hope is that this relatively in-depth review of the CEC experience, in tandem with my specific fixes and proposed conceptual framework, will advance discourse about central issues concerning the role for citizens in government, government transparency, and government accountability.
