|
|
Plugged In, Tuning Up (March 2001)
CONCLUSION
The individual approaches of state legislatures can serve as a useful window for analyzing
their capacity to meet the information needs of their constituents and the public, laying the
groundwork for increased civic participation. The degree to which user needs and interests are met,
while legislatures are in session, raises a number of issues. Ultimately the models that state
legislatures use points to a number of underlying assumptions about the utilization of public goods
and resources, often creating barriers to entry that may send a signal about who should not participate.
The actual functionality of the sites inevitably caters to the information and design needs of some
at the expense of others. Content-rich sites may satisfy the most experienced user who knows what
s/he wants, yet confuse the novice users in a sea of details. Sites that provide only minimum,
basic details may provide a useful starting point for citizens unfamiliar with legislative procedure, yet
serve as a poor overall resource for active civic actors interested in legislative activity. This might
be because those most familiar with the overall legislative process represent the current user base
for such resources, or represent the loudest voices around the development, implementation,
and feedback of the websites.
This study, as an outside assessment of state online legislative efforts and practices, raises
a number of starting points for further inquiry and investigation:
- The extent to which state legislatures and the public they serve operate within, and
are supported by, an electronic government framework that meets their multiple needs
depends upon a number of factors. How are the information technology departments of each
state set up and equipped to serve legislative bodies? Are key electronic communications
tools, like e-mail and websites—to the extent lawmakers themselves use them— supported by
the expenses of individual members themselves? What is the average technology setup for
an office in each state legislative office? Does each office have its own public and private
e-mail, fax number, and access to update personalized web pages, or are these
functions administered through a particular legislative entity?
- The technology capacity of a state legislature is only one part of the equation. There is
little available information on the overall practices and attitudes of the legislators
towards information technology, and the opportunities it affords them to better connect to the
public, their constituents, and the groups that advocate on issues. Such an investigation
would have to look not only at the legislative body as a whole, but the structure and practices
of each chamber making up that body, the internal and external factors and constraints
that affect the practices and attitudes of legislators and committees. For example, are
there, correlations between/among the size of legislative bodies and their chambers, the length
of its sessions, and the frequency with which it meets, and lawmaker attitudes and
opinions with respect to e-mail, faxes, postal mail, and office visits by constituents? How
are individual and committee websites, e-mail, faxes, instant messaging,
newsgroups, discussion lists, chat, streaming media viewed and used inside, outside, and
among legislative offices? Are legislators themselves and their staff trained and active users
of legislative resources?
- Other studies might seek to track state legislative resources in order to see how
features identitified in this assessment can and are being refined to address a range of
needs. Mechanisms, for example, that collect input and feedback can, with some modification,
be utilized to engage citizen input on legislative matters.
- Back in May 2000, an "online experiment" was launched to allow citizens to express
their opinions regarding ways the federal government can provide improved content and
more services via the Internet, initiated by United States Senators Fred Thompson (R-TN)
and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), respectively the Chairman and Ranking Democrat on the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. The effort was titled "e-Government: An Experiment
in Interactive Legislation," and the idea was to receive comments that would be used in
the development of legislation. It served as a bipartisan approach towards engaging citizen
input about how government can take advantage of online resources to serve the public better,
by taking comments online in a "virtual hearing," rather than simply introducing legislation
that lays out ambiguous goals for government.
Another example of online input-gathering from citizens is the federal Web-based Education Commission
13, a 16-member panel that examined ways to engage the education and Internet communities jointly in order to create online learning opportunities
and environments. WBEC was one of the first Congressional commissions to accept
"e-testimony," collecting comments into a database of submitted testimony, searchable
by name or type of organization or individual, as well as educational or policy interest.
Most rural citizens in Hawaii desiring input in the legislative process via hearings
and testimony are limited to the submission of written testimony only, as flying to the state
capital from the outer islands is prohibitively expensive for both legislative staff and
constituents. The Hawaii State Rural Health Association (Lihue, HI) is currently exploring ways to
utilize Internet-based videoconferencing to connect rural sites with the health committees of
the Hawaii State Senate and House to enable "distance citizenship" via public library
and community college connections. The Internet is, therefore, a possible means of
enabling communication, education, and research opportunities related to rural health issues
for underserved populations, their advocates, and leaders in Hawaii.
Further use of models, such as those outlined above, would allow constituents and
public interest groups, regardless of geography or other physical barriers, to provide their voice
in the development and delivery of goods in which they have an interest or a stake,
as opposed to passively receiving content or information from an online source or entity.
- Further investigation should examine the extent to which legislative activity is
conducted online, and the extent to which online tools have been beneficial or counter-productive for
a range of users, from lawmakers to constituents. This raises questions about the nature
of the legislative process at the state level, including the degree to which
legislators/committees rely on nonprofits and citizens to initiate legislative activity. Further
studies might wish to examine the volume of proactive versus reactive electronic
communications between legislators and constituents, and the degree to which stakeholders
incorporate online legislative resources and technology-based approaches to their work. This
might provide a much fuller picture as to the nature of state legislative uses and attitudes
towards the Internet. It also raises interesting questions as to whether the same interactions
and relationships citizens conduct with government translate online.
The next phase of e-government is predicated on connecting end users directly to their
institutions. This will mean more than providing an e-mail address for a webmaster or
single-point-of-contact within an organization. It will require personalization, faster access, and other advanced
services that dictate new rules of interaction, in effect forcing online organizations to decide how much
of their traditional offline roles could be devoted to engaging users while trying to provide
as comprehensive a range of services themselves. As more of these functions are delivered
through outsourced services, nonprofits and citizens groups in particular should lend their input
and expertise towards the deliberations and considerations around the needs services should
address. This will help to ensure that government does not operate in a manner such that public
interest obligations are ignored. All government online entities should be encouraged, during this period,
to develop more collaboration around systems design that incorporates shared knowledge
and experiences with a wide range of user expectations and demands.
To instill confidence in systems which leads to both increased repeated use, users need to not
only feel satisfied but secure in the their experience. One means to this end might include outreach
and training to citizens around their use, not only online, but also in person where people are most
likely to access the Internet itself. Where and how people access the Internet affects their
overall experience and their user satisfaction, at home, work, libraries, community centers, and even
public kiosks.
State legislatures themselves need to also look at how they treat and use the resources
made available to the public. Steve Clift, in a set of basic e-government
practices,14suggests, "The most sustainable `e-democracy' activities will be those incorporated into existing and
legitimate governance processes." Online resources will not be used nor taken seriously unless they
are incorporated into existing practice and not viewed as an add-on or burden.
Online government resources are public resources. Therefore the basic functions and
content should not be presented to the public in any form that involves a fee, nor should barriers to
access, permission, or knowledge be erected that prevents the widest base of users from
accessing information. To do so is to put a wall between users and the institutions they support that
are designed and charged to serve them.
Democracy itself depends upon citizen and public interest participation. The prospects of
e-government to deliver enhanced democracy through technology requires no less than this.
As state legislatures continue to become even more responsive to the needs of their citizenry,
their mandate is clear: be visible, accessible, usable, and useful.
NOTES
(13) http://www.webcommission.org
(14) http://www.publicus.net/articles/evten.html
|