re:  We are looking for the best solutions available to provide the public the best open and transparent oversight of Recovery Act funds.

If this "National Dialogue" approach is to be effective, and more importantly, if it is to be viable in future, it is imperative that "open and transparent" begin with this very dialogue.  If the "public" is to have faith in this and future dialogues, the "public" needs to know such things as:

• How many responses/inputs were received?
• How many were deleted/rejected and why?
• Were all inputs actually read by the RATBS (you)? 
• How will you (RATBS) determine which inputs to adopt?
• Will you make public the complete lists of inputs adopted, inputs declined?
• Will you specifically identify who (by name/position) makes such determinations?
• How do you determine whether inputs received are actually posted by whom the commenter claims to be?
• Are any of the inputs or comments posted by members of the Executive Branch or Legislative Branch of government?

As an aside, would you be willing to share with us how many staff members (interns? paid staff? volunteers?) are employed gathering data and analyzing same for this particular dialogue?

Thanks.

Agreed.  An effective service and solution needs to be in place to manage the potentially large volume of allegations through the hotline service and to implement a robust referral system to send allegations for follow-up to the appropriate IG or responsible office.  The hotline call center and a sophisticated referral system that combines case tracking and fraud detection can be seamlessly integrated into one solution.  This solution should also provide advanced reporting capabilities to ensure transparency to the public at all times.  For additional thoughts refer to the Idea posted for Protecting Stimulus Funds from Fraud, Waste and Abuse.

Dear "DRH from RATB",

Because you reached out for ideas on this particular topic means that you are openminded enough to realize that there are people out there with special knowledge (and wisdom) that can help you set up a better "hotline and referral system" for the RATB.

I am tempted to make some suggestions here but, here it is, Sunday night, and this discussion will close down at midnight.  And, as it is, it really isn't much of "discussion" -- your request for ideas, and two other (albeit thoughtful) comments.  But, yet, it is still a good step towards a better discussion. 

So I suggest that, in order to give this topic the discussion that it deserves, you continue this discussion in some manner.  (Maybe set up a group at GovLoop.com or an email-group like this one at GoogleGroups.com.)

And, even though you are probably under the gun to quickly set up some kind of system, that discussion would still be helpful, even after you put that system into service.

I am not a vendor, but I am a retired federal employee (five agencies in D.C.) with experience in regulatory compliance.  My last federal job was in the "office of internal oversight" for a multi-billion dollar program.

That experience tells me that, if RATB is only going to shoot for a whiz-bang job of referring cases to other IGs, then RATB is not really breaking any new ground in the "transparency and accountability" department.   But, because Recovery.gov is the first effort to try new ideas in achieving better "transparency and accountability", then RATB should also be open to the idea that many worthy ideas still exist outside of RATB (even after one whole week of this soliciting them on this website).

I have been using online discussions for 20 years, and also have experience in moderating discussions involving hundreds of users.  If you, or anyone else, wants to talk about how to continue the discussion on this topic, please feel free to contact me at sbuckley at UStransparency.com  

Of course, it's easy enough to just go ahead, myself, and set up a place for an online discussion.  But I'd rather be collaborative in deciding how best that could be done (and by whom).  Your thoughts are welcome.

-- SB

P.S.  Okay, here's one idea.  Let any potential whistleblowers see whether there are other allegations similar to the one that they are thinking of making.  It doesn't have to compromise confidentiality, but just enough information for a concerned employee who is wondering "Am I the only one who sees this?"  (That condition is what kept everyone quiet when the Emperor wore no clothes.)  It also creates transparency to the rest of us as to where the "trouble spots" may be developing.