![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.992361111111111in"
height="0.5395833333333333in"}

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.996527777777778in"
height="1.1277777777777778in"}

**ssue 20 • Fall 2007**

*The USA Services Intergovernmental Newsletter is produced twice a year
by the USA Services Intergovernmental Solutions Division, GSA Office of
Citizens Services and Communications; Lisa Nelson, Editor. Send comments
and suggestions to: <lisa.nelson@gsa.gov>.*

**Lead Article**

New Opportunities for Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

**Building Trust in Government**

E-Democracy in Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

MAPLight.org: Shining a Light on Money and Politics . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Building Trust in Government in Brazil Through Electronic Voting . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Stimulating Citizen Engagement in Government: Hampton, Virginia . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Online Citizen Participation Service in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

**Engaging Citizens**

EPA: Engaging Citizens Through E-Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Gainesville Police Department Engages Citizens and Enhances Public
Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Open House Project: Helping Congress Define Transparency Reforms . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

So You Want to Podcast? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Technology Matching Fund: Helping Seattle's Residents Help Themselves .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Generational E-Democracy in Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Australia's Principles for ICT-enabled Citizen Engagement . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

**Public Comment**

E-Petitions and Two-way Communications with the British Prime Minister .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Citizen Communities Compel Change for E-Grant Process . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

The Great Lakes Water Quality Web Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Engaging Your Public in Today's World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Think It's Easy to Balance the State Budget? Click Here. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

E-Democracy in Action: Locally Driven Conservation . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

**Using Social Media**

Federal Blogging Is Poised to Take Off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Uploading Democracy: Candidates Field YouTube Questions . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

CDC in Second Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Government Information Outreach in Social Media and Virtual Worlds . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Government Participation in Social Networks: Joining the Conversation .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

**Getting to Mature E-Democracy**

Click-Through Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Ten Practical Online Steps for Government Support of Democracy . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

E-Authentication: Safeguarding Citizen Identity . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

New Opportunities for Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process

By Darlene Meskell

Director, USA Services Intergovernmental Solutions

GSA Office of Citizen Services and Communications

U.S. General Services Administration

Information and communication technology (ICT) has become a powerful
tool for transforming the way governments interact with citizens. The
Internet presents amazing new possibilities beyond the established model
of democratic government. In that pre-Web world, government disseminated
information and citizens could only express their views through the
postal service, by town hall meeting, or in prescheduled elections. This
time-consuming, iterative process, while critical to the exercise of
democracy, didn't feel very participatory. In the 21st century, as the
true potential of the Internet is just starting to be tapped, we're
seeing its impact on democratic processes in new and exciting ways. The
Internet is providing opportunities for voting online; spreading
awareness of lesser-known candidates for public office; permitting
citizens to easily petition the government on important issues; helping
police fight crime; allowing the public to weigh in on state budget
priorities and government regulatory proposals; and making Congress and
congressional campaigns more transparent. Online activism, like
Moveon.org, can have a direct impact on the political process; videos
deliver questions directly from citizens to televised presidential
campaign debates; Brazil introduces electronic voting; and Minnesota
allows citizens to participate in legislative debates in real-time.
Governments now are beginning to post blogs and deliver crucial
information in virtual space such as Second Life; national leaders can
engage in two-way communications with online petitioners; and national
conversations take place with point-counterpoint videos on YouTube.

Recognizing the sophistication of the public and the ways people now
make their presence known online, government entities have increasingly
begun to harness the potential of the Internet to meet their
constituents online, because that's where people are making their voices
heard and where decisions are being made. Electronic government provides
citizens with quicker and easier access to information and services and
facilitates decision-making that permits broad grass-roots engagement
with the democratic process. Citizen input is not just a matter of
convenience any more; it's become an essential for how democracies work.

In recent years, there has been much discussion about the public's lack
of trust in government. Much of this distrust is attributed to a lack of
knowledge and understanding of the inner workings of government, both in
the legislative and civil service arenas. Failure to provide instant,
accurate, copious government information on demand and not engaging
citizens in the development of public policy feeds a growing cynicism
and destroys trust.

This newsletter explores some of the many ways technology is making
government processes more accessible and expanding citizen participation
in public policy decision-making. It documents the first steps in what
is certain to become a wave of remarkable technological applications
that will continuously change the way citizens and the governments that
represent them interact. The articles describe many of the ways
electronic government is:

**•** Building Trust in Government

**•** Engaging Citizens

**•** Facilitating Public Comment

**•** Using Social Media, and

**•** Getting to Mature E-Democracy.

**Building Trust in Government**

Interactive Web-based programs and electronic tools dramatically
increase the opportunities for citizens to actively participate in their
government. E-Government systems offer maximum transparency and enable
participants to watch the players in the executive, legislative and
judicial branches of government and to see the impact of their own
interactivity. ***E-Democracy in Minnesota*** allows residents to watch
legislative debate on television or the Web, read proposed amendments
online, and send comments directly to their lawmakers as the debate
unfolds. ***MAPLight.org*** is ***Shining a Light on Money and
Politics*** by correlating campaign contributions with how legislators
vote, thereby providing a window into the connections between money and
politics. ***Building Trust in Government in Brazil through Electronic
Voting*** describes the evolution of 100% electronic voting in the
Republic of Brazil, where voting is compulsory.

***Stimulating Citizen Engagement in Government*** in ***Hampton,
Virginia*** is part of the city's strategy to enable and stimulate
citizen involvement in the process of community governance. ***Online
Citizen Participation Service in Korea*** is one of that country's
efforts to enhance the transparency and credibility of public
administration through citizen participation.

**Engaging Citizens**

E-Government allows citizens a level of engagement---without leaving
their homes---never before made possible. For the Environmental
Protection Agency, ***Engaging Citizens Through E- Government*** is near
and dear to its mission, which calls for citizen participation in
decisions about clean air, water, and the overall environmental quality
of their neighborhoods. The ***Gainesville Police Department Engages
Citizens and Enhances Public Safety*** by involving citizens in helping
to make their communities safer places in which to live. ***The Open
House Project Helps Congress Define Transparency Reforms*** by offering
recommendations to Congress on ways to more effectively use technology
to further transparency in its operations. The Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency redesigned its website to provide visitors
with a user-friendly experience while telling the agency's stories
directly to the public. ***So you Want to Podcast?***,the author asks,
proudly offering suggestions based on his agency's experience. The city
of Seattle is helping to close the digital divide and encourage a
technology-healthy city with a ***Technology Matching Fund*** that
***Helps Seattle's Residents Help Themselves***.The State of Maine's
innovative Internet practices are creating ***Generational EDemocracy***

***in Maine***, bringing people closer to their government and enhancing
democracy. Recognizing the need for a standardized approach to this new
medium, the Australian Government's ***Principles for ICT-enabled
Citizen Engagement*** provide guidelines for agencies wanting to enhance
citizen participation in government through the use of ICT.

**Public Comment**

Governments are collecting and using public opinion to improve the ways
they deliver services to citizens. For example, in the United Kingdom,
there is a long tradition of citizens presenting petitions at the door
of

Number 10 Downing Street, the home of the Prime Minister. Now, the door
of Number 10 Downing Street is a virtual one, as current technology
updates this practice with ***EPetitions and Two-Way Communications with
the Prime Minister***. Sometimes, citizen concerns are sought to help
the government improve its processes, when, for instance, ***Citizen
Communities Compel Change for E-Grant Process***. In the case of
e-grants, citizen groups offering their opinions improved the initial,
basic

processes set out in the U.S. government's Grants.gov initiative.

Well-designed structures and processes can enable government officials
and citizens to hold well-informed and productive discussions online, as
in. ***The Great Lakes Water Quality Web Dialogue***.

***Engaging Your Public in Today's World*** demonstrates how different
levels of government are using

software to engage citizens and benefit from their collective ideas.

If you ***Think It's Easy to Balance a State Budget, Click Here*** when
a non-partisan California group takes its Internet tool to schools and
civic groups to allow Californians to tell their legislators what they
want in policies, programs, and budget priorities. Budget trade-offs
that were once handled in back-rooms of the state Capitol are now out in
the open for everyone to view, and citizens can juggle the priorities
themselves and see how their decisions compare to the Legislature's. At
the heart of ***EDemocracy***

***in Action: Locally-Driven Conservation*** is "greenprinting," a
process used by the Trust for Public Land that uses Geographic
Information System (GIS) models to map a community's priorities for its
natural resources. Greenprinting can help galvanize public support for a
particular use and encourage partners to work toward common conservation
goals to guide growth management efforts.

**Using Social Media**

Government is on the edge of radical change in the way it communicates
with its constituents. Increased interactivity is important for
promoting not only online engagement of citizens and public servants,
but also offline engagement. The IBM Center for the Business of
Government finds ***Federal Blogging Is Poised to Take Off***, and
discusses this new technology as a way to foster improved communications
in the public sector, both with citizens and internally within
organizations. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
is taking advantage of as many technologies and media as feasible to get
its health messages out to as many people as possible. Its presence on
the 3-dimensional multi-user virtual environment "Second Life" is one
component of CDC's comprehensive effort. ***CDC in Second Life*** has a
first-hand look at the evolution of a new form of blended social and
educational networking to take the message to the audience.

One of the most intriguing trends for government information
dissemination is ***Government Information Outreach in Social Media and
Virtual Worlds***. The National Library of Medicine is collaborating
with others in the government health community to find more effective
mechanisms to deliver health information in an emergency. The Library of
Congress is sponsoring ***Government Participation in Social Networks,
Joining the Conversation*** using blogs and other social media to
educate online communities and enhance citizen discovery of the content
of their online collections. Millions of viewers experienced
***Uploading Democracy*** watching ***Candidates Field YouTube
Questions*** in a televised presidential debate in the United States on
July 23, 2007. Viewer-created videos, later posted to YouTube, allowed
ordinary citizens to pose questions directly to the candidates in real
time. The ground-breaking format gave voice to ordinary citizens not
normally able to participate in such a forum. The 37

video questions, selected from thousands submitted in advance, drove the
debate and showed the

candidates and the nation a new form of participatory democracy.

**Getting to Mature E-Democracy**

***Click-Through Democracy*** poses questions about the positives and
negatives of public comment through mass e-mail campaigns that allow
thousands of individuals to send duplicate e-mails by simply clicking a
"take action" button. There is a need for simple guidelines for
separating thoughtful comments from electronic form letters. Steven
Clift, Chair of EDemocracy. org, who believes that government should be
leading the charge into an increasingly and fundamentally interactive
society, offers ***Ten Practical Online Steps for Government Support of
Democracy***. And lest we forget, online interaction between citizens
and government will be unworkable unless the process and technology
safeguards are in place to ensure that the information exchanged with
individuals is protected. Teams are in place through the federal
government to create and institutionalize the systems that will
safeguard individual privacy and system security. One of these, the
cross-agency e-government initiative ***E-Authentication***, is
***Safeguarding Citizen Identity***. The E-Authentication Identity
Federation creates an environment in which federal agencies can rely on
electronic identity credentials issued and managed by other public and

private organizations to verify/validate the identity of individuals
accessing their online applications.

These articles document the many ways government---and citizens---are
using new technologies to interact, communicate and strengthen
democratic institutions.

*Darlene Meskell is Director of USA Services Intergovernmental
Solutions. For additional information contact lisa.nelson@gsa.gov.*

E-Democracy in Minnesota

**I. Minnesota: On-Air Legislative Coverage Available Without a
Subscription**

By Steve Senyk

Director of Senate Media Services

Minnesota Senate

In 1996, Minnesota state lawmakers took a giant step towards
transparency when they opened their chamber doors to Minnesota residents
by over-the-air broadcasts of floor sessions and select committee
hearings. Unlike nearly all other states with televised legislative
proceedings, most Minnesota residents are able to watch their lawmakers
at work without the need to subscribe to cable or the Internet.

Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller led the efforts to televise
Senate proceedings. "Having informed citizens is essential to a healthy
democracy. Allowing more people to see and hear what we do in the state
Senate is good for all of us," he said.

Through a partnership with Twin Cities Public Television, the Minnesota
Legislature delivers daily programming to over one million homes in the
Twin Cities and surrounding area. The programming airs on TPT 17, a UHF
channel, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day of the legislative
session. About 10 high-profile floor and committee debates are televised
after 5:00 p.m. per year as well.

In past years, Nielsen ratings indicated that 4,000 to 6,000 Twin City
households are tuned into proceedings throughout the day, with some
high-profile debates and press conferences reaching up to 25,000 to
30,000 households. The programming is produced by Senate and House
staff. Coverage consists of floor sessions and committee and press
conferences, as well as public affairs programs and issue-oriented
features and historical segments.

In addition to broadcasting proceedings directly to homes, the Minnesota
Legislature's television services include providing a video feed to the
Twin Cities broadcast news organizations. The service enables political
reporters to incorporate floor and committee debate highlights into
their evening newscasts.

As broadcast television moves from analog to digital transmission and
the number of over-the-air broadcast channels expand, even greater
opportunities will exist for producers of legislative coverage. The
Minnesota Legislature will be entering an agreement with the Minnesota
Public Television Association for statewide, over-the-air digital
broadcasts of its programming.

Through the use of technology, active participation in democratic
institutions is greatly increased. In fact,

Minnesota residents today can watch legislative debate via television or
the web, read the proposed amendments online, and send comments directly
to their lawmakers as the debate unfolds.

Pogemiller said, "We know people are watching. They call the Capitol to
let us know when they agree or disagree with what lawmakers are doing.
It's always good to hear directly from citizens, even when they're
unhappy."

**I I. The Minnesota Legislature Online**

By Robbie LaFleur

Director, Minnesota Legislative Reference Library

At the Minnesota Legislature, e-democracy is an attitude, a daily
activity, and a goal. The attitude dates back to 1994, when a legislator
asked staff members to put legislative documents on the Internet. Why
should legislative information just be available to people who manage to
come to the Capitol? The Minnesota Legislature has a tradition of
transparency and strong citizen outreach, and the Internet provided a
new opportunity to continue that tradition. In the following years, the
Legislature's website built citizen involvement into the legislative
process by offering easy access to bills, statutes, guides, video and
audio coverage of proceedings, and analytical reports supporting
legislation.

The commitment to using technology to strengthen democracy and citizen
involvement remains strong and leads to constant improvement and
innovation. For example, bills were published on the web early on,
followed by improvements in search capabilities, in how quickly bills
were posted, and in presentation. Now you can subscribe to the "MyBills"
personalized bill tracking system and choose to be notified of new bills
and legislative actions via e-mail or an RSS feed.

Today's citizens expect and are able to watch the proceedings of the
Legislature online at their convenience. It's only been a few years
since the first audio and video of House and Senate floor debates were
available on the web; now online audio coverage of all committee
hearings and floor sessions is available, and many include video
coverage as well.

Timely access to documents produced by legislative offices strengthens
the Legislature\'s image as an open institution. Rich background on
policy issues is available to citizens as well as legislators. For
example, the House of Representatives Research Department recently
produced over 100 "Short Subjects"---two-page explanations of
legislative issues to help educate newly elected legislators. Those same
great overviews are available to the public online. The House and Senate
Fiscal Analysis Offices publish useful spreadsheets and piecharts to
help explain the complexities of the state budget. Informative
newsletters help citizens follow the Legislature throughout the session.
The weekly issues of the House "Session Weekly" and Senate "Briefly" are
augmented by daily online updates.

Opportunities to learn about and reach legislators become more extensive
with each session. Web pages for House members can include biographies,
links to bills authored, RSS feeds of press releases, district maps,
video interviews, and podcasts. In the Senate, members have the
opportunity to create secondary web pages, and several have added links
to additional press releases, surveys, or video clips. Legislators note
that they receive few "snail mail" letters any more, and they now
struggle with huge volumes of e-mail.

Representative Gene Pelowski, Chair of the House Governmental
Operations, Reform, Technology and

Elections Committee, notes a huge transformation since he was first
elected in 1986. He feels that easy access to legislative documents,
legislator e-mail addresses, and audio and video coverage of floor
debates and committee hearings, makes the legislative process less
intimidating. Citizens are more attuned to the process. "It's taken away
the veil. The process is demystified; there's no magic here anymore."
Rather than sending general comments, constituents now comment on
particular sections or items in specific bills and cut and paste
sections into e-mail correspondence.

Webcasts of legislative hearings and floor sessions allow itizens to
follow legislation in real time or at their own convenience. Additions
such as agendas, minutes, and daily online articles from the public
information offices enhance the ability of citizens to thoughtfully
follow the process and contribute in a meaningful way. Representative
Pelowski was impressed at the number of people who regularly watched his
committee hearings on the web during the legislative session,
particularly because the committee met from 8:00-10:00 in the morning.
"They'll comment, and they are from all over the state."

E-democracy has become a daily activity. As access to legislative
proceedings and documents has increased, Minnesota citizens have become
more active participants in the legislative process on a daily basis.
Even modest developments have had an important impact, such as web-based
calendars and e-mail notification of committee hearing schedules. Once
that information became available, time-constrained citizens could more
efficiently plan to testify at hearings and know when to contact
legislators about the issues they were following.

E-democracy exists, but enhancements continue. For example, the Office
of the Revisor of Statutes implemented a new XML-based bill drafting
system, and an important benefit to all citizens has been improved
searching of bills, laws, and state agency rules. To reach more
citizens, programmers in the office are now working to improve the
search interface for citizens with visual limitations who use screen
readers.

Many members of the Minnesota Legislature are eager to develop
additional ways to contact citizens and encourage participation in the
legislative process. They are interested in more robust opportunities to
communicate with citizens, more online public discussions, more online
surveys and polling, and more communication among members of a
committee. Finding adequate funds to develop systems, purchase and
customize software, and upgrade hardware is a continuing challenge, but
the Minnesota Legislature website has a strong foundation on which to
expand its e-democracy efforts in the future.

*Steve Senyk is the Director of Senate Media Services, a nonpartisan
department of the Minnesota Senate charged with producing and
distributing television coverage of the Minnesota Senate and State
Capitol events. For additional information contact
Steve.Senyk@senate.mn. Robbie LaFleur is the Director of the Minnesota
Legislative Reference Library. For additional information contact
robbiel@lrl.leg.mn.*

MAPLight.org: Shining a Light on Money and Politics

By Dan Newman

Executive Director and Co-Founder

MAPLight.org

Question:

**•** After being elected, does your Congressperson vote in line with
your values?

**•** Does your Congressperson take money from tobacco companies? Labor
unions? Oil companies?

**•** Does your Congressperson vote in accordance with your interests or
with big-money special interests?

MAPLight.org is a groundbreaking public database that can provide
answers to these and other questions. (The "MAP" in MAPLight.org stands
for "Money And Politics.") After more than a year of research and
technical development, MAPLight.org launched its groundbreaking website
in May 2007, tracking contributions to and votes by members of Congress.

This federal search engine doesn't just track bills. It also provides a
detailed analysis of the support and opposition these bills garner from
interest groups and the campaign contributions given by those interest
groups to members of Congress. Website visitors can track the impact of
political contributions at the federal level, day-by-day and
vote-by-vote.

MAPLight.org is non-profit and nonpartisan. It combines campaign
contribution information from the Center for Responsive Politics and the
National Institute on Money in State Politics with public records of
legislators' votes. At the click of a mouse, citizens can now learn
which special interests are donating to legislators--and how those
legislators are voting on specific issues and bills. MAPLight.org aims
to expand citizen participation by "shining a light" on the power
campaign contributions have on legislation, giving citizens timely and
detailed information about their elected officials.

The correlation of money and votes that MAPLight.org exposes is
information that previously would have taken days or weeks to compile.
For example, on May 7, the U.S. Senate passed an amendment to prevent
consumers from buying prescription drugs from abroad. Visitors to
MAPLight.org can easily learn that the pharmaceutical industry, which
supported this amendment, gave an average of \$70,181 to each Senator
voting "Yes" on this amendment---more than 2.5 times as much as the
\$25,914 average the industry gave to each Senator voting "No." The
industry-backed measure passed by a vote of 49 to 40.

(Contribution amounts are from 2001- 2006.)

Visitors to our website can drill down and see how their individual
legislator voted, along with the amount the legislator received from
each contributing industry. Visitors can view a timeline of
contributions, showing which legislators received a contribution within
a few days of the vote. Site visitors can also get a customized analysis
of money and vote data that they can then easily share with others.
Information available includes:

**•** Top 10 interests contributing to each legislator and how often
each legislator voted with that interest.

**•** The amount donated by each contributing interest group and each
group's success rate at passing and stopping legislation.

**•** Timeline of contributions and votes for each bill, graphically
identifying when legislators received large donations before or after
their vote.

In addition to covering the U.S. Congress, MAPLight.org also tracks the
California Legislature, including the percent of times that legislators
voted with each special interest. We will be expanding over time to
track money and votes in all 50 states.

Issue-oriented non-profits can also use MAPLight.org to increase their
effectiveness. For example, shortly after launching the California
MAPLight.org database, Norman Block, President of the Santa Margarita
River Foundation---a small non-profit organization---wrote an Op-Ed in
the North County Times, the daily newspaper in his area. Mr. Block's
organization is trying to protect the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve
from a proposed quarry. He ended his article with a citation of
MAPLight.org data:

*It is no wonder that these three legislators are eager to support the
development of Liberty Quarry. After*

*all, they readily accepted major campaign contributions from builders
associations. According to MAPLight.org, of all the Assembly members
representing 36 million Californians, Mssrs. Bogh and Benoit*

*are in the Top 10 for campaign contributions from builders
associations; and builders associations represent the fourth-highest
campaign contributor to Mr. Haynes.*

MAPLight.org makes it possible for organizations like the Santa
Margarita River Foundation to find and cite money and political data
that are central to its cause. By referencing MAPLight.org data, Mr.
Block strengthens his arguments against a quarry. Simultaneously, he
educates his supporters about the impact of campaign contributions on an
issue that is deeply personal and motivating to them.

Our website recently received first prize in the NetSquared Innovation
Awards, a contest for the best nonprofit technology project. Projects
from around the world---more than 150 in all---were judged on social
impact, technical innovation, and sustainability. This award is a
recognition of the significant impact

of making government information available to everyone in a
wide-ranging, easy-to-use way.

MAPLight.org is designed to help keep government closer to the consent
of the governed--American citizens. A well-functioning democracy depends
on constituents' meaningful access to knowledge about their elected
officials. This transparency leads to increased accountability for
legislators; constituents can now demand explanations about why
legislators voted a certain way and from whom they received campaign
contributions. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, "Sunlight is said to be
the best of disinfectants."

The idea for the website came about when it was recognized that
traditional grassroots organizing, while vital, is not enough. Putting
key government data into the hands of citizens empowers them to hold
legislators accountable and facilitates the ability of citizens to take
action on issues they care about. Over time, MAPLight.org has the
potential to improve trust in government, as citizens hold their
legislators accountable for their votes and legislators respond.

Websites such as MAPLight.org are part of a broad movement that is
making use of the Internet and "Web 2.0" technologies to make government
information publicly accessible and to increase government transparency.
This kind of work is the wave of the future. With the power and
bandwidth of today's Internet, it is no longer necessary to pore over
and cross-reference documents for thousands of hours long after the data
is relevant. MAPLight.org and other sites like it allow the public to
follow the money

trail on specific issues they care about in real-time.

*Dan Newman is Executive Director and Co-Founder of MAPLight.org, a
non-partisan, non-profit free public resource. For more information, go
to www.maplight.org, or contact dan@maplight.org or phone
(510)868-0894.*

Building Trust in Government in Brazil Through Electronic Voting

By Danilo Piaggesi

Chief, Information and Communication Technology

Development Division

Inter-American Development Bank

Brazil is a presidential and federative republic with considerable
decentralized federalism. It is made up of 26 states and a federal
district (Brasilia). The government includes a directly elected
president with a national constituency and a congress. The legislature
is made up of a 513-member Chamber of Deputies and an 81-member Senate.
Congresspersons serve for a basic four-year term, while senators serve
for eight years. The states have unicameral legislatures that are
elected simultaneously with congress. The municipalities have city
councils that serve for four-year terms; municipal elections take place
two years after state and national elections.

The computerization of the electoral system started in 1986 with the
development of the National Registry of Voters. The development of this
central database system improved the reliability of the registration
process by preventing voters from registering in more than one local
registry. It also increased the efficiency of the registration process
and developed a computerized network to connect The Tribunal Superior
Eleitoral with the 27 Regional Electoral Courts and the 2,900 precincts.
The development of this network was the first step toward the more
ambitious objective of establishing an automated vote counting process.

Electronic count was introduced in 1994. A year later, a task force put
forth a proposal for the development of a computerized ballot box. The
proposal was sent to all institutions, political parties, and ministries
in the country. Experts from the federal ministries were invited to
participate in establishing the system's technical requirements and
specifications. The electronic voting machine was first tested in the
municipal elections of October 1996. The test included cities with more
than 200,000 voters and all state capitals, involving 33% of the voters.
A second test was performed during the 1998 general election and
included cities with more than 40,000 voters, covering 67% of all
voters. The system was first tested in the entire country during the
2000 municipal elections.

The voting procedure is quite straightforward. A voting machine consists
of two terminals installed in each polling station. The first, a
numerical keyboard with a two-line liquid crystal screen, is used by the
representative of the voting board to type a voter's identification
number. If the voter is registered in the precinct, his or her name is
displayed on the screen and identification is accomplished. The second
terminal is used by voters, and it also includes a keyboard and a liquid
crystal display. First, voters type their candidate's identification
number. The screen shows the candidate's name, initials of the party or
coalition he/she belongs to, and his/her photo. After verifying that all
data are correct, voters press "enter" to confirm their choice. The
keyboard contains two additional keys. The first is the correction key
that allows voters to restart the process. The second one allows a voter
to cast a blank ballot.

**The Trustworthiness of Electronic Voting**

The trustworthiness of the electronic voting service is embedded in
institutionalized procedures as well as the technical features of the
software and systems. This combination of procedures and technical
features provides security for the system and software before and during
the election.

Software development stops 180 days before the elections. The source
code is made available to the technical experts of political parties so
they can ensure that it complies with approved legislation and test the
reliability and trustworthiness of the entire system. Sixty days before
the elections, the software is sealed during a public ceremony.
Representatives from political parties and civil society are invited to
participate in order to digitally sign the compiled copy of the software
code. During this ceremony, a sequence of important events takes place.
The first is the generation of hash-function tables to prevent the
software's source code from being modified and verified afterwards. The
second step is the digital signing of the compiled version of the
software source code to ensure the integrity of the software uploaded
into e-voting machines. In the third step, software applications, which
are already digitally signed and encrypted, are distributed to the
regional electoral court (Tribunal Electoral Regional, TRE), which is
the authority managing the electoral process.

E-voting machines are put in place on the day before elections. However,
a percentage of these machines, depending on the number of voters in the
state, are taken back to the TRE to check their reliability. At 7.30
a.m., on the day of the election, the president of the precinct, in the
presence of representatives of the Voting Board and the political
parties, turns e-voting machines on and runs a calibration check.
Detailed information on the votes is printed and signed by the president
of the precinct and representatives of political parties on the day
after the election. The data can then be independently verified by
several groups, including the electoral committee and political parties.

The system itself is protected by a security infrastructure that
prevents data from being intentionally or unintentionally modified
and/or deleted. The security of the system comprises two separate
programs loaded on all voting machines. The system auditing program
records all transactions performed on the particular machine, including
initialization and the casting of every vote, as well as machine
downtimes due to power failures, printouts requested, and other such
information. All transactions are time stamped. Transaction records from
a sample of machines are examined following the conclusion of the voting
process. The system security program prevents any tampering with the
actual machine, such as, for example, the removal of the diskette on
which votes are stored. Any such action will result in the machine
shutting down.

*Danilo Piaggesi is the Chief of Information and Communication
Technology at the Inter-American Development Bank. For additional
information contact DANILOP@iadb.org.*

Stimulating Citizen Engagement in Government: Hampton, Virginia

By Charles N. Sapp, Ph.D.

Hampton City Council

and John Eagle

Assistant City Manager

Hampton, Virginia

In a recent essay for the IBM Center for the Business of Government,
Donald F. Kettl highlighted "citizenship that work(s) more through
engagement than remoteness" as a key imperative for the performance of
American government in the 21st century. He went on to say that this
mandates "a new role for citizens, one that requires them to rethink
their connection to--and involvement in--the pursuit of public
interest."

It is within this context that the city of Hampton, Virginia, has
developed a strategy designed to both enable and stimulate citizen
involvement in the process of community governance. The strategy is
built around four pillars: (1) citizenship skills; (2) quality
information; (3) information infrastructure; and (4) public venues.

**1. Citizenship Skills**

Alumni from the following initiatives are a key source of recruits to
serve on various community boards and commissions and serves as a farm
team for further community leadership development.

**Hampton Civic Community College (HCCC)** -- Students participate in an
engaging curriculum that teaches them about the organization,
operations, and services of the city government through a combination of
lectures, panel discussions, and field work. Since its inception in
1994, the HCCC has graduated some 455 citizens, 130 of them since 2004.
([www.hampton.gov/neighborhoods/college](http://www.hampton.gov/neighborhoods/college))

**Neighborhood Leadership Institute** -- This institute offers
leadership knowledge and development training to neighborhood
organizations with the goal of increasing the effectiveness of their
neighborhood organizations. Over 210 citizens have graduated from this
program since its inception in 2004.
([www.hampton.gov/neighborhoods/college](http://www.hampton.gov/neighborhoods/college))

**Youth Commission** -- This award-winning model for youth civic
engagement acknowledges that young

people have a real stake in improving the places where they live, learn,
play, and work. Youth civic engagement provides meaningful opportunities
for young people to serve others, to influence decisions, and to gain
leadership and work experience.
([www.hampton.gov/foryouth](http://www.hampton.gov/foryouth))

**2. Quality Information**

According to a Hart-Teeter study for the Council for Excellence in
Government, citizens identified greater public access to information as
one key benefit of e-government. From the citizen's standpoint, quality
information is at once accurate, complete, and timely. The Internet and
a variety of associated tools now provide access to information that was
not previously readily available to the public. Hampton relies heavily
on technology to help increase access to the legislative process and the
supporting information.

**Decision Support Data Packages** -- The city maintains a robust
website that provides in-depth decision support information identical in
content and timeliness to that received by City Council members. The
information management system allows public review of entire agenda
packages, including background reports, resolutions, accompanying slide
presentations, and zoning maps. Full-text search capabilities permit
in-depth research, with links to Notices of Action, the history of
legislative items, and complete council minutes dating back over half a
century.
([www.hampton.gov/council/council_documents.html](http://www.hampton.gov/council/council_documents.html))

**On Demand Video** -- While Hampton live-broadcasts City Council and
Planning Commission meetings on the local cable public access channel,
and over the Internet, it is also possible to watch past meetings from
an archive. Citizens may view the entire session or skip directly to an
agenda item that interests them. Video is also linked directly to the
associated decision support packages, allowing citizens to search for a
specific legislative item of interest using a full-text search tool and
then navigate directly to the portion of the meeting where the item was
deliberated and acted upon.
([www.hampton.gov/council/council_meetings.html](http://www.hampton.gov/council/council_meetings.html))

**3. Information Infrastructure**

Even the best e-government access strategies can be thwarted by the lack
of high-speed Internet access.

**Digital Infrastructure** -- Hampton is aggressively pursuing the
building of fiber plant infrastructure within the community,
collaborating continuously with incumbent communications providers and
new entrants into the market. Believing that electronic infrastructure
is analogous to streets and roads for the 21st century, the city staff
has actively engaged to build partnerships, plan the telecommunications
highway system, promote digital inclusion, and push for large bandwidth
capacity at affordable prices. Such efforts have increased awareness,
stimulating incumbent service providers to build additional
infrastructure and to participate in a competitive environment to reduce
prices. Two-thirds of citizens now indicate they have high-speed
Internet access available from either home or work.

**Digital Inclusion** -- Over the past several years, the city's library
system has been transformed from a traditional book-lending organization
into a full-service information service and access provider. Over
170,000 terminal sessions are initiated each year.

**Digital Mobility** -- Whereas many cities have chosen to subsidize
free wireless networks, Hampton was the first in the nation to build a
free wireless network based upon a self-sustaining financial model. The
result of a public-private partnership, the city's wi-fi network
utilizes an unobtrusive banner within the Internet browser that contains
advertisements and links to local vendors. A citizen accessing the
Internet from his or her apartment downtown might see an advertisement
for an apparel shop across the street. The network produces over one
million page views a year and is growing.

**4. Public Venues**

Skills and access to information have limited value without
opportunities to participate in a meaningful way.

**Planning Activities** -- Public planning charrettes provide access to
the community, land use, and neighborhood master plan development
processes. These sessions are typically attended by hundreds of
citizens.

**Boards, Commissions, and Advisory Committees** -- The Redevelopment
and Housing Authority, Planning Commission, Finance Committee, Federal
Areas Development Authority, Military Affairs Committee, and
Neighborhood Commission are examples of key bodies staffed primarily by
citizens appointed by the City Council. These bodies have a profound
effect on the crafting of public policy and the execution of important
community development programs.

**Direct E-Mail Exchange** -- E-mail addresses for elected officials and
key city staff are published to allow citizens and decision-makers to
routinely communicate on a wide range of public policy topics, resulting
in hundreds of emails exchanged annually on a wide variety of topics.

**Conclusion**

This focus on developing citizenship skills, providing quality
information, the development of information

infrastructure, and creating meaningful public venues has begun to pay
off in a more involved public and improved public policy decisions.
Results to date have been encouraging; the future looks bright.

*Charles N. Sapp, Ph.D., is a member of the Hampton City Council and an
alumnus of Vice President Gore's National Performance Review. John Eagle
is an Assistant City Manager of Hampton, Virginia and former Director of
the Information Technology Department. For additional information
contact john.eagle@hampton.gov.*

Online Citizen Participation Service in Korea

By Hyo-young Lee

Deputy Director, E-Government Headquarters

Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs

Government of Korea

**Background and Objectives**

The main objective of e-government in Korea is to enhance transparency
and trust in public administration through increased participation by
the public. Although the public's interaction with government is enabled
by the online provision of civil services and disclosure of
government-owned information, the current levels of service take-up and
satisfaction with public services still have much room for development.

People who attempt to file public complaints and civil petitions are
often frustrated by not knowing which agency is responsible for the
relevant service, resulting in repeated submission of similar petitions
to multiple agencies. Such incidents increase the burden on public
administration, lower work efficiency, waste administrative resources,
and curtail public trust in government.

In order to address this problem, the Korean government decided to
integrate the diverse channels for receiving civil petitions and
applications for public policy proposals. It enhanced the system further
by creating a portal to serve as a single channel for listening and
responding to the voice of the public.

This Online Participation Portal at www.epeople.go.kr is a single window
for receiving public complaints and policy proposals. It is also a place
to engage in public online forums on national policies through the
site's network of administrative agencies, local governments, and public
organizations.

The service is expected to deepen public trust in government through
enhanced efficiency. It will eliminate repetitive civil complaints and
reduce waste in administrative resources through the one-stop processing
of civil petitions. The reduction in processing time and assurance of
efficient and trustworthy services will further enhance service
satisfaction levels.

**Progress So Far**

As a first phase of the project, Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
and Information Strategy Planning

(ISP) initiatives were carried out for three months, from June to
September 2004. The Korean government then established an action plan
for phased implementation of the Online Citizen Participation Service.

The second phase of the project involved integrating the civil
participation services of all central government agencies. First, based
on the results of the BPR and ISP, a pilot project involving seven
agencies, including the Presidential Office, the Ombudsman Office, the
Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and the Ministry of
Environment, was carried out from December 2004 to July 2005. Services
provided through the portal were upgraded based on the results of the
pilot project and feedback collected from the public users. Beginning
December 2005, the Online Citizen Participation Service was disseminated
to 49 central government agencies.

Beginning in October 2006, the Service was further enhanced, in terms of
stabilized operations and information security, for connection of the
portal to local government agencies and public organizations. By April
2007, the system was linked to 20 local government agencies. Next year,
the Korean government aims to provide links to more than 200 local
government agencies for the non-stop processing of civil complaints and
petitions.

**Main Services**

The main services provided by this online portal for citizen
participation include: civil complaints, public proposals, policy
forums, and community clubs. The portal aims to enhance transparency and
credibility of public administration through citizen participation and
ultimately to promote an "open government" for the people.

**1. Civil Complaints and Public Proposals**

The public can more easily ask questions, submit civil petitions, and
make public proposals through this single portal. Whereas in the past
users did not know exactly which agency to address their inquiries to,

www.epeople.go.kr automatically categorizes public applications and
refers them to the relevant agency The agency can also process the
inquiries more efficiently by referring to precedent cases. Responses to
complaints, petitions, and inquiries are sent to the applicants via
email or mobile phone SMS service, along with the name of the agency and
public servant in charge. Responses to complaints are promised within
seven days, but the average time required for processing a complaint has
dropped dramatically to 1.6 days. Petitioners who submit policy
proposals are promised a reply within 30 days.

**2. Policy Forums and Community Clubs**

This online portal also provides a venue for public users to engage in
forums regarding public policies, to collect opinions, and to conduct
e-hearings and e-polls on policy issues. The people can also voluntarily
form community clubs among members, after which forum results can be
submitted as civil complaints or public proposals.

**Key Achievements**

The Korean government estimates that the time required for processing
petitions and civil complaints has been reduced significantly -- the
time for processing complicated petitions dropped from 44 days at the
end of 2004 to 15.1 days by the end of 2006. The satisfaction rate of
users has increased significantly, from 30% in 2005 to 45.9% in 2006,
and further to 52.2% as of the first part of 2007.

In terms of cost savings, \$940,000 was saved by reducing the number of
applications for civil complaints, more than \$3 million was saved in
integrated processing of repeated petitions, and over \$4 million was
saved by reduced maintenance costs due to integration of the systems.

*Hyo-young Lee is the Deputy Director E-Government Headquarters for the
Government of Korea. For additional information contact
hylee@mogaha.go.kr.*

EPA: Engaging Citizens Through

E-Government

By Molly A. O\'Neill

Assistant Administrator

Office of Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The topic of how e-government is changing society and strengthening
democracy is especially relevant for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Our mission of protecting human health and the environment
is only possible with the involvement of many outside of the agency,
especially citizens who have a keen interest in how clean their water
is, how safe the air is to breathe, and how to ensure the environmental
quality of their own neighborhoods.

The Environmental Protection Agency is, by legislation, a regulatory
agency. Information technology is enabling a new level of citizen
involvement and transparency in our core business process, which is how
we develop, improve, and make final the regulations that safeguard us
now and for generations to come. Through the President's Management
Agenda, EPA has developed and is now operating the award-winning
E-Rulemaking portal
(<http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main>).

This is the one place citizens can go to see all rules the entire
federal government---not just EPA---is proposing. Citizens search for
and comment on proposed rules and carefully monitor this very important
work the federal government does on their behalf. Transparency and
involvement in the process are made easier by technology.

The second key area of progress is how EPA is leveraging the web to do
what is fundamental to the agency's value structure---which is to
provide access to the data we have. "Window to My Environment"

(<http://www.epa.gov/enviro/wme/>) is a powerful, web-based tool that
provides a wide range of federal, state, and local information about
environmental conditions and features in a given area. The application
is provided by EPA in partnership with federal, state, and local
governments and other organizations.

For those interested in analyzing the toxics released in their
neighborhoods and/or states, EPA developed the TRI (Toxics Release
Inventory) Explorer (<http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/>). This tool
allows users to display multimedia TRI data on chemical releases and
waste management on a map or download the data for use in other
applications.

In January 2007, we launched the EPA Geospatial Data Access Project
(<http://www.epa.gov/enviro/geo_data.html>). The project provides
downloadable extensible markup language (XML) files containing key
facility information for use in mapping and reporting applications. The
file currently contains close to 60,000 records, including those of
facilities on the Superfund National Priorities List, in the Toxics
Release Inventory, the National Pollutant Discharge Permit Elimination
(Majors) Permit Compliance System, and EPA\'s Performance Track Program.
To date over 200 individuals have signed up to receive e-mail
notifications of data updates, added datasets, and other topics of
interest from this groundbreaking project designed to enhance access to
environmental information.

One of the criticisms of the federal government is that it builds large
national stovepipe systems that do not allow integration of data by
other partners. At EPA, we have developed, with our state and local
partners, the largest Environmental Information Trading Network in the
world today (<http://www.epa.gov/exchangenetwork/index.html>). Internet
based, XML and web service enabled, the network breaks the stovepipe
model and allows anyone at any level of government on the network to
freely exchange data. This frees our state, local, and tribal partners
to build their own systems on their own schedules and use the network to
exchange the data for the environmental problem at hand.

So much of what we hear today is how important collaboration is to solve
the multifaceted problems facing our nation. Scientifically defensible
data are imperative for sound environmental decision making. Our e-gov
response has been to develop a portal called the Science Portal
(<http://portal.epa.gov/ESC>) where scientists, no matter where they
live and work, can collaborate, exchange data, and more efficiently
complete this valuable work.

What has been on my mind lately as a CIO, and I would think a number of
other CIOs, is how to provide transparency and ready access to all the
data resources an agency has, whether websites, databases, content
management systems, or any other way we store and manage data. As the
amount of information increases and people's expectation and need for it
becomes more and more immediate, we need to find ways to navigate and
discover these important resources. This means continued investment in
new search capabilities including meta data and tagging. While we
incorporate the latest search technologies, we also need to seek the
experience of information specialists in each agency who have expertise
in helping people locate information. At EPA, we are committed to
advancing the search and discovery of critical environmental
information.

*Molly A. O'Neill is Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. For additional information contact
Christopher Orlando at Orlando.Christopher@epamail.epa.gov.*

Gainesville Police Department

Engages Citizens and Enhances Public Safety

By Lieutenant Ed Posey

Gainesville, Florida Police Department, and

Chuck Georgo, Executive Director

NOWHERETOHIDE.ORG

The majority of citizens in our country will never come into contact
with their local law enforcement officers, let alone have exposure to
the inner workings of police and sheriffs' departments in their region.
The Gainesville Police Department in Gainesville, FL, wanted to change
that. They sought out and successfully employed easily available
Internet technologies to share the wealth of crime data they collect
routinely. The data provides a tool to better engage the citizens of
Gainesville in helping to make their communities safer places in which
to live. More specifically, the police department wanted to:

**•** Demystify law enforcement operations for the citizens of
Gainesville.

**•** Motivate community groups to have a stronger hand in addressing
crime.

**•** Enable individual citizens to better protect themselves from
criminal activity.

Before the Internet era and the advent of law enforcement websites,
citizens had to watch the evening news or read the newspaper to know
about the major crime incidents that occurred around them. News
reporters had to literally drive to the local police station and read a
paper blotter, or they had to call the station and have a supervisor
tell them what was happening. Incidents not reported by the media were
very difficult for the average person to find out about. Even if
citizens did learn about an incident, they had to either physically go
to or call the police station to get a copy of an incident report. More
often than not, they had to wait three days to return to the station to
pick up the report, or they had to wait until the report was mailed to
them.

Then the Internet arrived. This provided law enforcement agencies with
an electronic way for citizens to become more aware of crime and public
safety issues in their communities and more involved in helping their
local police department, address those issues. Even the simplest law
enforcement websites let citizens see the "police blotter" for their
community or show photographs of missing persons or local criminals who
have been arrested.

The Gainesville Police Department is doing these things and more. They
are taking full advantage of the Internet and web technology so that
citizens can get the information they need and become informed and
involved without leaving the comfort of their homes or businesses.

The department has two websites. The first site answers citizens' basic
questions about the Gainesville Police Department, such as:

**•** What district and zone do I live in?

**•** Who is the Chief of Police?

**•** What officer works my area of the city?

The second website is called the "Police to Citizen," or P2C, website.
P2C was developed by the technology vendor that provides the police
department's Records Management System. The project took six months to
develop and implement at a total cost of \$10,000 to the department. The
same software now sells for approximately \$30,000.

The P2C website allows citizens to create a police blotter on-demand and
to plot crime incidents on a map. By entering a local Gainesville
address, citizens can create a map of the city around that address and
view accidents, incidents, and arrests that occurred in that
neighborhood for the last 30 days. Individual incidents are color-coded
red, yellow, or blue to distinguish the different types of events.
Citizens can "click" on any dot for more detail about a particular
event.

What is particularly innovative about the P2C interface is that the maps
are computer generated at the time the citizen requests the information,
not static maps manually created by an analyst in the department. To
comply with state and local privacy laws, not all police reports are
shown on the blotter or on the map; i.e., sexual battery reports are
kept off the P2C website.

Why are the maps so important to citizens? Gainesville is the very proud
home of the University of Florida, which has an average enrollment of
50,000 students. Before students relocate to the Gainesville area, they
want to know where in the region are the best and safest places to live.
In the past, our agency would receive many telephone calls from students
and concerned parents, asking the department if an apartment complex or
residential area was a safe area for the student to live. Unfortunately,
because of legal reasons, the department was not permitted to recommend
a particular area of the city, nor could the department suggest a
student not live in a particular area. Now, through the use of the P2C
website, students and their parents can use the interactive maps to
identify safe areas themselves.

The P2C website has also been a valuable tool for Gainesville citizens
actively involved in crime watch or neighborhood watch activities. They
currently use the website to stay abreast of crime in their respective

communities and to notify affected neighbors, either in person, via the
phone or via e-mail, about those crimes and what they can and should do
to protect themselves from future occurrences.

The information relayed to Gainesville citizens does not stop with just
crime data. The P2C website also allows citizens to learn about traffic
citations that were issued and the locations of vehicle crashes in the
region. Citizens can also use the maps to identify roadways and
intersections where traffic lights or signage may need to be improved to
reduce vehicular injuries and deaths.

In this era of the Internet, citizens now have the ability to be more
aware of the criminal activity occurring in the neighborhoods where they
live and work. The Gainesville Police Department's P2C website has
proven to be a low-cost and effective e-government tool to give citizens
the information they need, not only to better protect themselves, their
families, and their property, but also to become more involved in
keeping their own neighborhoods and communities safe.

*Lt. Ed Posey is a 23-year veteran of the Gainesville, Florida, Police
Department. He currently serves as the Executive Lieutenant for District
Three. For additional information contact poseyej@ci.gainesville.fl.us.
Chuck Georgo is the Executive Director of NOWHERETOHIDE.ORG. He can be
reached at <chuck@nowheretohide.org>.*

Open House Project: Helping Congress Define Transparency Reforms

By John Wonderlich

Program Director

Sunlight Foundation

Democracy in the 21st century faces a valuable but critical moment.
Transparency can play a key role in radically shifting the relationship
between constituents and their elected officials in a way that is both
politically significant and civically productive. In this spirit of
strengthening democracy, the Sunlight Foundation recently created the
Open House Project. This new forum gives government employees

and private citizens an unprecedented opportunity to collaborate in
defining straightforward reforms that can make congressional information
meaningfully accessible to the public.

The Internet is creating a dramatic change, not just in the way we are
aware of politics, but also in the way we relate to the systems that
carry that legislative information. Through e-mail and new political
websites, communities are growing around issues, parties, and
candidates. As political web communities develop, a new set of
stakeholders for political information is emerging. As the public's
capacity for information from the government increases, the incentive
structure that exists around sources of public information will be
realigned. The formation of the Open House Project is the direct result
of disparate groups recognizing their shared interest in legislative
information.

Accordingly, citizens, technologists, media figures, and advocacy groups
are joining forces. They recognize that access to primary sources---in
this case, specific data about the U.S. Congress and its work---is
fundamental to all journalism (be it citizen journalism, blogging, or
traditional journalism). As their shared interest in securing broad
digital access to legislative data becomes clearer, this diverse
coalition of transparency allies is developing a more unified voice.

The technological developments that are transforming newsgathering are
also shaping the public's knowledge and appetite for the workings of
Congress. Because of increasingly sophisticated broadcast capabilities,
news organizations have enhanced their ability to spread timely
political information to a constituency eager to blog about such
updates. Likewise, when video cameras were introduced onto the floor of
the U.S. House of Representatives to cover debate, lawmakers found a new
venue to communicate with their constituents.

Until very recently, however, the public has played a comparatively
passive role in the ongoing development of legislative communications.
As information consumers, American citizens were, by and large, only an
audience for news broadcasts and editorial boards, demanding disclosure
largely in response to scandal and influencing news content only
obliquely.

With the release of its first report in May 2007, the Open House Project
has taken a first public step in helping Congress encourage citizens to
be civically empowered participants in the democratic process.
Proceeding with Speaker Pelosi's initial endorsement of the project and
its goals, contributors to the project built a consensus around
practical technology reforms to enhance public access to the House of
Representatives. The report to Congress released in May was welcomed by
Minority Leader Boehner and has sparked a fruitful dialogue on Capitol
Hill.

By deliberating in the open, on a public list, participants are also
demonstrating the sort of powerful collaboration they hope to encourage
within Congress. The forum has attracted opinion leaders from both sides
of the aisle, with prominent bloggers, web developers, librarians, and
entrepreneurs taking part in the conversation.

In addition to the valuable contributions of stakeholders normally
outside the political process, the Open House Project has also attracted
the participation of net-savvy congressional staff members who see the
strong political potential of legislative data tools. Lawmakers from
both parties find, just as advocacy groups do, that citizens armed with
primary sources can become their strongest allies.

Currently, Open House Project collaborators are meeting with
congressional members and staff to define the best avenues to begin
implementing the recommended reforms. Having long advocated for
technological reforms and funding, many congressional staff members,
House IT staff, and other technical staff are connecting with newfound
allies and are finding enthusiastic support for their ideas through the
Open House Project. In addition to a wealth of support and technical
advice afforded by the growing list of Open House Project participants,
congressional staff are also attracted to the specialized audience
offered by the group.

For example, a contributor posting a question to the Open House Project
discussion list about a program that might lose funding might be met
with an explanation of the program's charter from a member of the group
that helped start that federal program. Similarly, an official looking
into video system upgrades can easily find experts in video systems or
informed advice from others who have undertaken similar projects.

Since a system as administratively complex as that of Congress may
likely be fraught with waste and redundancy, only rigorous coordination
will enable our legislature to smoothly adapt to the needs of electronic
political awareness. Creating a department or agency with broad
jurisdiction over existing departments is politically difficult; the
Open House Project is filling that need.

The group's reform efforts are now beginning to negotiate the process of
implementation and are encountering potential obstacles of partisanship,
limited funding, complex and guarded jurisdiction, and the complex
inertia of the historical and administrative aspects of Congress. Acting
with a strong, shared interest in transparency reform, many of the
group's recommendations will succeed, given the group's strong
bipartisan support, the decreasing cost of Internet development, and the
stated administrative commitment to transparency in government

In particular, government employees' contributions to the Open House
Project are encouraged and can be anonymous. Visit
[www.theopenhouseproject.com](http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/) to
view updates and follow the link to the Google group to participate in
or read the group's discussions.

*John Wonderlich is the Program Director for the Sunlight Foundation, a
Washington, DC, based non-partisan, non-profit transparency advocacy
organization. For additional information, contact John via email at
johnwonderlich@gmail.com or at 202/742-1520.*

So You Want to Podcast?

By Leonard A. Sipes, Jr.

Chair, Website Committee

U.S. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency

The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) is a federal
executive branch entity providing parole and probation services for
Washington, DC. The agency has a national reputation for excellence in
design and execution, so when we began planning for the redesign of our
website ([www.csosa.gov](http://www.csosa.gov/)), we wanted a site that
matched our reputation. We wanted to provide a web experience that would
be user-friendly by giving the public a choice of reading, listening to,
or watching story-based accounts of our operations.

The title of our radio and television show is "DC Public Safety." We are
now one of the highest ranked shows for criminal justice issues (per key
search terms) on search sites such as Google and iTunes. We have been
called a "national model for communication" by the International
Community Corrections Association. We are a resource for major national
websites, like "Justice Talking" by National Public Radio. Our programs
are featured on the front page of a Department of Justice faith-based
website. We are featured on the U.S. Government's primary web portal,
USA.gov. As of April 2007, our podcast site has had 75,000 hits.

**How We Began Podcasting**

The website committee for the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency wanted to add audio and

video content to our redesigned website. Podcasting is the tool that
allows us to do that.

Podcasting was something I had heard about, but that was about it. I was
reasonably proficient at word processing, email, and Internet search,
but no one would accuse me of computer or technological excellence. The
thought of podcasting was daunting. I was intrigued by the
possibilities, but woefully lacking in podcasting skills.

**What Is Podcasting?**

Podcasting is recording your voice or a conversation by computer and
then placing the recording on a server so others can hear what was said.
Podcasting uses an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feed that allows
others to download the recording onto their computers or to a portable
device, like an MP3 player. Your program is now available for anyone in
the world with Internet service to listen to. You do not need an iPod or
other portable MP3 device to access a podcast. Most people listen to or
view podcasts using their home computers.

Video podcasting uses the same principles. You load a video program
created by your agency or a local public access station. Throughout this
article, I'll refer to both audio and video efforts as podcasting.

**Why Podcast?**

All of us in government and the private sector complained that we lacked
opportunities to tell our stories without the filter of media. We wanted
the public, the media, and our partners to understand who we are and
what we do. Without access to money for an advertising campaign, we were
almost solely dependant on the media to tell our stories.

Websites were our first opportunity to present ourselves in the way we
wanted to be portrayed. Podcasting is now giving us the second
opportunity to convey our messages and tell our stories directly to the
public.

Podcasting and handheld digital devices are giving the Court Services
and Offender Supervision Agency the ability to bring citizens along as
we do our jobs. We can take citizens with us when we serve warrants.
Citizens can join the correctional officer when he or she walks his or
her beat in the most difficult part of the prison. Judges can bring
everyone into their courtrooms.

Podcasting gives us endless opportunities to present sensitive issues
directly to the public. We control the content. We get to say what we
want to say and how we want to say it.

**What Are the Responsibilities of Podcasting?**

Podcasting comes with a new set of responsibilities. We become our own
publishers. If we are going to podcast, we need to publish what is fair,
honest, and accurate---the same standards we demand from the mainstream
media. As someone who has spent nearly 28 years in public relations for
the criminal justice system, I fully understand that agencies can see
situations through blinders. If we are going to control the message, we
need to be certain that we are telling all sides of the story.

**The Technical Stuff**

• Audio podcasting will cost you about \$1,500 for a computer, software,
microphones, headphones, and a mixer (less if you are using an existing
computer). It will cost about an additional \$500 for a handheld digital
recorder. Get one that is easy to use; user-friendly software exists for
both Microsoft and Apple products.

**•** You can take your existing computer and download or install the
software you need. While the geeks in

podcasting can argue endlessly about the type and quality of microphones
and mixers and settings, a trip to any electronics store can give you
the basic information you need.

**•** NB: You will want a two-microphone set-up. This will increase your
start-up costs a bit, but interviews are necessary to keep your show
interesting. It takes gifted people to inform and entertain by
themselves.

**•** There is great news about the cost of servers. The server is the
device you put your podcasts on so anyone with Internet access can watch
or listen. There is a wide variety of organizations (available via an
Internet search) that will allow you to rent a server or part of a
server for \$10 to \$12 a month. Hundreds of people can access your
shows at one time without server failure. Your IT department will likely
thank you, because they often do not have the bandwidth to provide the
same service from your website.

**Available Resources**

**•** There are books and websites that explain the process of
podcasting. Plug "books" and "podcasting" into any search engine. Go for
the books that describe themselves as basic introductions. Books also
exist for intermediate levels and marketing. I probably invested 150
hours in reading and Internet searching.

**•** Get thee a geek! Professional consultants are available if you can
pay approximately \$100 to \$150 per hour. Get someone who is excited
about podcasting and who looks forward to showing you what equipment to
buy and what to do. Consultants can be found at the local community
college and in the community. They want to show you how to do it!

**•** Online instructions abound. Courses are available.

**Some Final Thoughts**

**•** Podcasting is less expensive and more affordable than many of us
think.

**•** Podcasting technology is understandable, and you do not have to be
a studio engineer to do it. Using a computer and inexpensive
microphones, I get quality sound that a couple of years ago would have
required a professional recording studio. If I can do it, anyone can.

**•** I went through lots of trial and error to get to this point and,
yes, it was a humbling process at times. I continue to make mistakes and
learn. But it's been worth it. Podcasting is the wave of the future. It
will become as important as your website. It's like having a team of
proficient public relations specialists on duty 24 hours a day. The time
to invest is NOW.

*Leonard Sipes is a Senior Public Affairs Specialist and Chair of the
Website Committee for the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency. For additional information, contact <Leonard.Sipes@csosa.gov>*

Technology Matching Fund: Helping Seattle's Residents Help Themselves

Bill Schrier

Chief Technology Officer

City of Seattle

Many, many people in the United States are online every day, using the
Internet, electronic mail, and a variety of other technology tools to
conduct their daily business and enhance their personal lives. But---a
significant digital divide still exists in our country. Because of where
they live or how much they earn, others do not have access to the
technology a majority of us take for granted. While access to technology
has increased for many, studies still show troubling gaps in access and
literacy skills that are essential for full participation in our digital
society.

In 1997, the city of Seattle established a Technology Matching Fund
(TMF) grant program to support community efforts to close the digital
divide and encourage a technology-healthy city.

If a community is contributing volunteer labor, materials, professional
services, and/or funds to expand technology access, the city of Seattle
will "match" these contributions with cash grants from the Technology
Matching Fund.

Seattle uses its Citizens Telecommunications and Technology Advisory
Board (CTTAB) to help the Seattle City Council decide how to award the
grants. CTTAB was established in 1995 to advise elected officials and
the city's Chief Technology Officer on a variety of issues relating to
the use of information technology. CTTAB reviews TMF applications and
recommends projects.

Technology Matching Fund grants go to eligible organizations to assist
them in promoting citizen access to information technology, improving
literacy in the use of technology, and applying technology to foster
civic engagement. Funded projects have:

**•** Enabled parents with limited English-speaking ability to access
their children's online public school records.

**•** Allowed immigrants and refugees to obtain essential workforce
computing skills.

**•** Given young people the opportunity to learn digital storytelling
and programming as a means of improving academic achievement.

**•** Provided victims of domestic violence with online access to
information on safety.

In 2007, Seattle awarded \$160,000 in Technology Matching Fund grants to
15 community projects that are furthering the city's commitment to
education, inclusion, and race and social justice. Funding for the
grants comes from cable franchise fees. Seattle---like many local
communities in the United States---allows cable companies to use its
rights of way. In return, cable companies pay a 4.2% franchise fee. A
portion of this fee is allocated for the TMF.

Recent projects include a wide cross-section of initiatives:

**•** The **Seattle Municipal League Foundation** built a capability to
conduct web surveys, discussion forums, and streaming video. The
Municipal League---a "good government" organization---analyzes the
results and reports the findings to participants, policy makers, and the
media.

**• Reel Grrls** used its grant for a summer program to help teenage
girls increase their media production and project management skills.
Participating young women produced videos for community non-profit
organizations.

**• Sustainable Seattle** trained young people to serve as field
assistants for community street-level surveys in 10 Seattle
neighborhoods. Survey volunteers used handheld computers, digital
cameras, and other technology tools to collect data and communicate
community priorities to city government.

**• East African Community Services** taught refugee and immigrant
parents basic computer skills. Using these skills, parents are able to
access student and school data online, helping their families to take
better advantage of Seattle School District programs.

**•** The **International District Housing Alliance** funded its
Citizenship Exam Preparation Project. Homebound, disabled Asian and
Pacific Islander immigrants and refugees learned how to prepare for the
citizenship exam through an in-home training program using laptops and
educational software.

**•** The **Phinney Neighborhood Association** created a digital media
literacy program to help seniors find, critically evaluate, and
effectively apply information from digital media sources, as well as
produce their own media content.

**• Provail** staged a "Computer Camp for Children with Disabilities."
Underserved children with disabilities attended a week-long camp where
they learned to use computers, adaptive equipment, and specialized
hardware and software. Parents also had an opportunity to understand the
equipment, become familiar with necessary skills, and learn how to
obtain appropriate technology for their children.

These projects--and many others over the last 10 years--have benefited a
wide range of Seattle residents, including youth, seniors, disabled
residents, immigrants and refugees, and victims of domestic violence.
The funded projects have provided education, employment training, and
opportunities to explore community issues. By harnessing the power of
existing community organizations and groups, Seattle's Technology
Matching Fund program helps residents "bootstrap" themselves into the
digital age.

*Bill Schrier is the CIO for the City of Seattle. For additional
information contact <bill.schrier@seattle.gov>.*

Generational E-Democracy in Maine

By Matthew Dunlap

Secretary of State

and Lisa Ann Leahy

Office of Information Technology

State of Maine

It is no secret that the youth of our time enjoy a synergistic
relationship with technology unparalleled by any other cohort.
Generations X and Y rely on it for all aspects of their hurried
existence. We observe them "plugged" in to iPods for entertainment,
masterfully using laptops for schoolwork, surfing the Internet for
research, social networking, communication, and purchasing products.
They traverse the world through their fingertips. Our future as a
society is reliant on engaging their civil participation by leveraging
electronic democracy. The liberties we exercise today were earned by
generations of forward thinking individuals.

**The E-Path to Maine Lawmaking**

Baby boomers in Maine remember all too well the School House Rock
Saturday morning civics lessons

through the cartoons "How a Bill Becomes a Law," "Preamble" and "Three
Ring Government." The Maine

Secretary of State website provides a similar learning experience for
Maine youth. The site gives an overview of the legislative process with
related activities and resources for young people to make the road to
governance less bewildering and the path of Maine lawmaking easier to
travel.

The goal of "The E-Path to Maine Lawmaking" site is to de-mystify the
Maine legislative process so that youth can understand how the steps in
the process result in state laws. Specifically, youth are extended an
online invitation to come along on a cartoon journey on "The Road to
Maine Lawmaking," or to view the online video, "Person to Person:
Legislating Maine," about the state\'s legislative process. The six
online lessons and activities that accompany the video are designed for
teachers to help students understand how legislation is introduced, how
laws are passed, how public policy decisions affect their lives, and how
they can contribute to governance in Maine. A writer\'s guide is
provided to help them write to their legislator, including important
tips on what to include in the letter. If they visit the State House,
the "Guide to Testifying" will guide them through the public hearing
process and help them prepare testimony in front of a legislative
committee. "Law Talk" aids in understanding the terms they will hear at
the State House and in public hearings. The "Parliamentary Procedures"
page provides links to online sources to help understand the process for
running a meeting in an orderly way. If they can\'t visit the State
House and want to listen to a public hearing or legislative debate in
the House of Representatives or Senate chambers, they can visit the
"Listen to the Legislature" audio link.

In de-mystifying the legislative process for Maine's youth, it is
important that young people recognize the fiscal impact of exercising
their civic duties. Governor Baldacci presents an interactive "Budget
Balancing Education Tool" on the Maine.gov website. This tool allows
visitors to view the most current budget projections and adjust expenses
and revenues, while viewing the results in real time. They can then send
the Governor their balanced budget proposal.

**E-Democracy for Kids and Young Voters**

Engaging youth to participate in the voting process when they are of age
is a vital component of the democratic process. To that end, Maine.gov
offers an area devoted to this topic. Election information for young
voters is presented in several categories:

**• Maine Mock Election**

The Maine Student/Parent Mock Election is an excellent way to encourage
young people to become interested in voting and involved in state and
national issues and candidates. It is sponsored by the

Maine Secretary of State.

**• Maine Youth Vote Media Project**

Maine students are producing public service announcements to explore
issues about voting, elections, and why it's important for young people
to take an interest in our democracy. It is sponsored by the Maine
Secretary of State.

**• Student Activities**

Maine students can download Board Games and play "Run for the Governor's
Office" or "Travel the Road to Maine Laws." Maine youth can learn all
about democracy, citizenship, freedom, liberty, and civics on the famous
quotes page. They can become more familiar with the features of the
State of Maine legislative website by searching online for answers in
WebQuest.

**Preserving Democracy for Future Generations**

Pre-college and college age students use the Internet to access
digitized archives from past generations for research. The Maine
Secretary of State, Matthew Dunlap, is on a crusade to bring digital
archives to reality. Secretary Dunlap meets with students from across
the State of Maine and impresses upon them that---when it comes to
technology--- the records of our times are slipping through our fingers
every day. In his message to students, he repeats the warning that we
are heading toward a catastrophe unparalleled since the burning of the
library at Alexandria, Egypt. Interestingly, that same comparison is
being made by leading scholars on the topic such as Jim Barksdale and
Francine Berman in "Saving Our Digital Heritage" (2007).

While much of the information housed in the archives is intrinsically
interesting, such as affidavits from Revolutionary War Veterans or the
battlefield reports of the Maine Civil War regimental commander, many
Might reasonably ask whether such documents have any real, material
value. The reason we retain

documents such as the original, handwritten constitution, and every
variant published since adoption, is that any fool with a printing press
can print copies of a constitution and leave out inconvenient provisions
such as the right to a jury trial, free speech, the right to bear arms
or to assemble peaceably. The value in retaining the trail of documents
affirms in historic evidence that, in fact, we do enjoy these rights
because we can trace them to the original meetings where they were first
discussed.

As a recognized leader in leveraging the Internet to deliver electronic
services to citizens, the State of

Maine is identifying and implementing ways to electronically engage
younger generations in the democratic process crafted by older
generations. The expectation is that, once they understand the
principles of governance, they will become more informed, responsible,
and involved citizens.

*Matthew Dunlap is Secretary of State, State of Maine. Lisa Leahy works
for E-Gov Services in the office of the Maine CIO. For additional
information contact <lisa.leahy@maine.gov>.*

Australia's Principles for ICT-enabled Citizen Engagement

*The Principle*s *issued by the Australian Government Information
Management Office (AGIMO), are intended to guide Australian Government
agencies considering engaging with citizens using information and
communication technology (ICT).*

**Preamble**

**What are the Principles?**

The Principles are a best practice guide for agencies wishing to engage
with citizens using ICT as part of their policy making processes.
'Citizens,' in this context, refers to individuals, business, community
and other organisations and sectors. These principles are the result of
research of existing national and international principles and with
input from agency representatives from all levels of Australian
government. The principles may need to be updated from time to time with
the advent of emerging technologies, citizen demand and from lessons
learnt.

**What do we mean by engagement?**

The OECD has developed a three stage maturity model for government
engagement with citizens using ICT (*Promise and Problems of
E-Democracy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement*,

<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdf>):

**Stage 1: Information Stage Government** ► **Citizen**

A simple one-way relationship in which government delivers information
to citizens.

**Stage 2: Consultation Stage Government** ►◄**Citizen**

A two-way relationship in which citizens provide feedback on issues
defined by government.

**Stage 3: Active participation Stage Government**◄►**Citizen**

A collaboration in which citizens actively shape policy options, but
where government retains the responsibility for final decisions.

It is anticipated that agencies' engagement approaches will vary
depending on specific project requirements, their individual progress on
the maturity model, resource availability, priorities and constituency
expectations.

**Why do we need the Principles?**

ICT has the potential to increase levels of citizen participation in
public discussions on the development of government policy. Citizen
engagement using ICT also has the potential to further promote a culture
of democratic decision-making in Australia.

One example of citizen engagement using ICT is online engagement. Online
engagement can include online forums, Web Logs (BLOGS) on nominated
discussion topics or e-mail discussion groups. For an existing example
of online engagement, visit Queensland's Get Involved website
([www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au](http://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/)).

**Who are the Principles for?**

The Principles have been developed for agencies across the different
spheres of government who are considering engagement using ICT as a
means of interacting with citizens.

**How will Agencies use the Principles?**

The Principles are to operate as a guide to matters agencies should
consider before undertaking engagement with citizens using ICT.

It is recognised that some agencies have limited resources to engage
online. The Principles are aimed at supporting the development of
engagement initiatives, rather than mandating specific outcomes.

**Other resources**

Agencies planning to undertake a process of online engagement will find
additional, practical guidance by

consulting the Australian Government's Better Practice Checklist for
Online Policy Consultation at

<http://www.agimo.gov.au/_data/assets/file/33928/BPC12.pdf>.

**Principles for ICT-enabled Citizen Engagement**

**1. Commitment**

Agencies committing to engagement using ICT need to ensure citizens have
appropriate mechanisms to communicate and participate effectively.
Commitment to engagement using ICT is strengthened through the
development of partnerships between governments and citizens.

**2. Community Focus**

When adopting ICT for engaging with citizens, agencies should facilitate
information access, knowledge-sharing and discussion amongst
participants and, through this, strengthen community consultation,
participation and input into government policymaking.

**3. Community Capability and Inclusiveness**

Agencies need to seek broad and diverse involvement across all sections
of the community and not exclude citizens without access to ICT or those
who face other barriers. Employing methods that are accessible and/or
complement traditional means of engagement will assist individuals to
participate and will build their capability for contributing to policy
development.

**4. Mutual Respect, Confidence, and Trust**

To demonstrate respect and build confidence and trust in online
engagements, agencies and citizens should agree on consistent standards
for communication when engaging with citizens. Agencies need to
facilitate clarity of understanding and transparency of engagement
processes by disseminating information, guiding participants' input, and
explaining how the input will be used in government decision-making.

Confidence and trust between the citizens and government will be built
by ensuring that engagement using ICT is a two-way and responsive
process.

**5. Interactivity and Flexibility**

Agencies need to promote active engagement and discussion while
employing flexible and innovative ICT-enabled mechanisms to take account
of participants' diversity of capability, location, and socio-economic
circumstances. The 24/7 capabilities of ICT can be used to help
participants inform themselves and enable them to provide considered
views in their own time and space.

**6. Responsibility and Accountability**

Agencies need to inform participants at the outset about how their input
will be received and used in policy-making. Once a decision has been
taken, agencies should indicate how citizen input through

online engagement has been used. Agencies also need to be clear about
who is responsible and

accountable for the online engagement process and any decisions
resulting from such engagement.

**7. Security and Privacy**

Agencies need to implement privacy protection, information security,
and, where appropriate, identity authentication measures. Agencies
should comply with relevant security and privacy legislation.

**8. Evaluation and Efficiency**

Agencies can maximise the efficiency of online engagement through
planning and effective collection, facilitation, and processing of
participants' input. Agencies need to evaluate the benefits of online
engagement by identifying and measuring the impact of online engagement
to policy-making.

*AGIMO is the office within the Australian Department of Finance and
Administration that manages the national*

*e-government program. Its website is
[www.agimo.gov.au](http://www.agimo.gov.au/).*

Public Comment

E-Petitions and Two-way Communications with the British Prime Minister

By Jimmy Leach

Head of Digital Communications

Office of the Prime Minister

United Kingdom

There is a long-established tradition of members of the public
presenting petitions at the door of Number 10 Downing Street, the home
and office of the Prime Minister---the British equivalent of the White
House.

The E-Petitions service at
[http://petitions.pm.gov.uk](http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/) was designed
to offer a modern, online parallel to this practice. E-Petitions makes
it more convenient for petitioners to present their petitions and
enables them to pass the petition to supporters digitally without
incurring significant costs. Unlike paper-based petitions, this new
service also provides an opportunity for Number 10 to respond to
petitioners via e-mail.

Since its launch in November 2006, the E-Petitions website has proved to
be a highly popular innovation in the way that people communicate with
government and with the Prime Minister\'s Office in particular.

The service allows anyone who is a UK citizen to create a petition and
to collect signatures via the website. Petitioners are asked to meet
basic criteria, set out in an acceptance policy, but we aim to accept
most petitions.

Since launch, the site has been very busy. Around 23,000 petitions have
been set-up by users, with around 4.5 million signatures originating
from roughly 3.5 million different e-mail addresses. The petitions cover
a wide range of issues, from repealing the Hunting Act 2004 to
restricting the use of lottery money to fund the London 2012 Olympics,
prohibiting puppy farms, and "banning ice cream vans from disturbing the
peace of British homes with their annoying chimes."

Around 8,400 petitions are currently live and available for signing;
almost 3,200 have finished; and another 11,500 have been rejected.

The information in a petition must be submitted in good faith and in
compliance with the law and the Civil Service Code. We reserve the right
to reject:

**•** Petitions that are similar to and/or overlap with an existing
petition or petitions.

**•** Petitions that ask for things outside the remit or powers of the
Prime Minister and the government.

**•** Statements that don\'t actually request any action.

**•** Wording that is impossible to understand.

**•** Statements that amount to advertisements.

**•** Petitions that are intended to be humorous or that have no point
about government policy. (However witty these are, it is not appropriate
to use a publicly funded website for purely frivolous purposes.).

**•** Issues for which an E-Petition is not the appropriate channel
(e.g., correspondence about a personal issue).

**•** Freedom of Information requests. (FOI requests go through other
channels.)

The most common reason for rejection is duplication. Many users
commented that there were many petitions on similar subjects clogging up
the site. We are trying to eliminate too much duplication or overlap,
while balancing the need for the nuances in petitions that are similar,
but take the subject in a slightly different direction. Many of the
rejected petitions are resubmitted, as everyone is given a second
chance. Some users address the issues we raise with them, some prefer
not to.

We set ourselves a target of processing new petitions within five
working days. In practice, this has sometimes proved tricky, since every
petition has to be read to ensure the E-Petitions site does not fall
afoul of the law, the Civil Service Code, or other standards expected of
a publicly funded website. In a few cases, propriety, ethics, and legal
advice have had to be sought from appropriate specialists within the
Civil Service. As various issues have been resolved, the speed of
handling has improved, and we're now clearing most petitions on the day
they arrive.

It is fair to say, however, that we at Number 10 Downing Street have
been surprised at the number of petitions received. To keep things both
manageable and a justifiable use of resources, we have reluctantly
decided that we cannot respond to petitions signed by fewer than 200
people, unless they relate specifically to small groups (for example,
people from a small community). And if a petition cannot really be
expected to gain a ministerial response---the point is its existence
rather than the response from government---then we reserve the right to
simply not respond.

On occasion, there have been big spikes in traffic when the site has
been getting 150 hits per second. This has led to some service issues,
with petitioners getting "busy" error pages rather than the service they
were expecting. But we have been serving the site at 99.5% reliability,
and we are taking steps to further minimise interruptions to the
service. In general, we feel that the numbers who have signed up to
petition show that the site is working pretty robustly, though we are
always looking for improvements.

Finally, it\'s worth reminding users that the code used by mySociety to
build this site for us is open source, so other organisations can build
a similar site under the Affero GPL software license. You can download
the source code from
<https://secure.mysociety.org/cvstrac/dir?d=mysociety> (look under
"pet") and help develop it further. You\'re welcome to use it in your
own projects, although you must also make available the source code to
any such projects.

*Jimmy Leach is the head of Digital Communications for the Prime
Minister's Office in the United Kingdom. For additional information
contact <JLeach@no10.x.gsi.gov.uk>.*

Citizen Communities Compel Change for E-Grant Process

By Christian T. Harker, PhD

President

Cayuse, Inc.

The impact of e-government is everywhere. For individuals who apply to
U.S. government agencies for grant funds, it is profound. Why? A 2002
presidential e-government mandate fundamentally changed the grant
application process from paper to electronic submission via Grants.gov.
The broad goal of the initiative is to use IT to increase government
efficiency and improve delivery of services.

This mandate has both polarized and motivated the grantee community in
two concrete ways: (1) grantees lobbied Grants.gov for improvements in
the process and in technology capabilities, and (2) they banded together
to collaborate and build system-to-system (S2S) solutions. Solutions are
needed to protect revenue, reduce costs, and avoid the risks of proposal
submission failure inherent in the limited-functionality software from
Grants.gov.

Why is this change significant? Because the free software tool supplied
by Grants.gov to support the new application process proved far from
adequate for securing grant funds---worth \$400 billion dollars--- that
are essential for the survival of individuals and private and public
sector research enterprises. Among the many criticisms of the free tool
is that it inhibits the collaborative activities required for grant
preparation and submission, resulting in an increased burden on
applicants and their support staff.

To date, applicants and groups have invested heavily in mastering the
complex process of preparing and submitting their paper proposals---some
up to 600 pages long. Depending on the focus of the proposed research,
only 2% to 3% of grant applications are funded, making proposal
development and submission a critical, large-scale effort needed to
sustain these research enterprises. Moreover, the process is made more
complex by the creation of a third-party intermediary, Grants.gov, which
receives grant proposals and forwards them to the 26 federal
grant-making agencies, each with a different set of well-established
technical requirements and institutional policies.

The first community response to Grants.gov, other than a mild form of
panic, was to work with government agencies through established
channels, including the Federal Demonstration Partnership (thefdp.org)
and the Council on Governmental Relations (cogr.org). This approach was
somewhat effective. Improvements in implementation and some concessions
in the deployment timetable were made because of these discussions.
Additionally, many of the more important policies for administering the
grant application process were aired, providing a way for both the
federal agencies and the applicant community to ease the transition.
This dialog continues.

Most examples of the second approach---that of building a better
solution---have been self- or research funded. Cayuse Inc., Duke
University, and Pennsylvania State University (PSU) have built solutions
making the Grants.gov process seamless and accessible for the applicant
community.

According to Ken Forstmeier, Director, Office of Research Information,
PSU's self-funded S2S initiative is an outgrowth of a decade-long
Electronic Research Administration (eRA) strategy that integrates budget
building and reporting systems to manage over 1,800 awards with a \$440
million grant portfolio from federal agencies.

Duke experienced a similar business need for the development of its S2S
initiative, according to Judith Dillon, Director, Office of Research
Support. Duke began its pilot submissions in June of 2006 and submitted
416 proposals totaling \$496 million in requested funds. Like PSU,
Duke's self-funded S2S initiative stemmed from an eleven-year investment
in a single system to manage the entire research enterprise.

From the Cayuse, Inc. perspective as a private, research-funded S2S
developer, essential dialog between the federal government and
interested individuals took place in public venues such as the National
Institute of Health (NIH) Commons Working Group (CWG). The CWG meetings
were critically important given the ambitious implementation schedule
and specialized functionality required for the NIH implementation of
Grants.gov.

As the previous examples demonstrate, once software development began,
significant and ongoing dialog was, and continues to be, required.
Rapidly evolving agency rules surrounding "valid data" have proven to be
a moving target for S2S developers. Many of the community's lobbying
activities toward the federal participants have centered on managing the
rate and scope of changes to the system.

Maintaining the system in the face of these ongoing changes continues to
be a daunting challenge, causing some S2S initiatives to flounder due to
the technical burden. As with most technical implementations of this
scope, building systems in an environment of constant change can be
costly and increase technical risk for both the applicant community and
the federal agencies. This constitutes the single most important area of
concern for the S2S community.

The outcomes so far are promising. In addition to the conspicuous
success of the individual S2S efforts on the efficiency of institutional
business practices, many more S2S proposals are flowing into the
Grants.gov portal. In May 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) reported the receipt of over 3,300 proposal submissions
to date from the S2S community.

The lesson learned from citizen involvement in these initiatives is that
the systems built by these individuals and teams have fundamentally
altered the means by which individuals and enterprises interact with the
federal government. This type of response was inconceivable when the
process of applying for grants was paper-based. The beneficial results
came about, not due to government being more responsive to individual
input, but because of the electronic format and business imperatives of
the application process. These pressures enabled citizen groups to
creatively and effectively band together to improve the basic process
set out by the federal government initiatives.

It is clear that the Grants.gov initiative is far from complete, but it
has moved into a full production environment that encompasses
everyone--government, individuals, and institutions--in a new process
with significant benefits. Cayuse will continue to be an active
participant in the community efforts to carry this initiative forward.

*Dr. Christian T. Harker is President of Cayuse, Inc. For additional
information contact christian.harker@cayuse.com.*

The Great Lakes Water Quality Web Dialogue

By Frank Bevaqua and Paula Fedeski-Koundakjian

International Joint Commission

Laurie Maak, WestEd

and Nicholas Dewar, Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.

**Overview**

To supplement a series of public meetings around the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence River, the International Joint Commission (IJC) held a
web-based dialogue to bring interested citizens from Canada and the
United States into a single, substantive, and coherent conversation.
Increasingly, organizations find that they must live with shrinking
travel budgets, and citizens find that it is more difficult to attend
public meetings. The Great Lakes web dialogue shows that, with a
well-designed structure and process, it is possible for government
officials and citizens to hold well-informed and productive discussions
online.

Such positive results do not automatically flow from web-based
consultation processes, as the IJC had learned from previous attempts at
online discussions. Careful planning is needed, along with a
well-designed web dialogue structure and process. Lessons learned from
the Great Lakes web dialogue experience are described below.

**Structure of the Web Dialogue**

In response to a request from the governments of Canada and the United
States, the IJC began a public consultation process to identify issues
for the governments to consider as they began to review their Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement. An integral part of this public
consultation was the web dialogue. The agenda for the four-day web
dialogue was structured to move from general expectations for the future
of the Agreement to more specific issues. The dialogue agenda was posted
and announcements inviting participation were issued approximately three
weeks in advance. Topics from one day set the stage for the next day's
topics, based on clearly defined "desired outcomes." Background
resources were provided in a library with recommended readings linked to
each topic. A facilitator helped to guide the dialogue, while, each day,
a different set of expert panelists informed the discussion of the
topics.

The dialogue was conducted simultaneously in French and English, so that
the French-speaking residents of the watershed could fully participate.
The goal was to provide real-time translation of every contribution to
the dialogue. Each participant could select the language of his or her
choice and participate in the same dialogue as those using the other
language. At times, there was some delay in the translation.

**Reinforce Participation by the Public**

The web dialogue was designed to reinforce public participation and
strengthen the connection between the participants and the process. The
goals for the dialogue were clearly stated on the home page and in the
announcement. Staff and members of the Commission were accessible and
active participants. The agenda addressed questions that were provided
by an advisory group made up of leaders of a diverse group of
stakeholder organizations.

Registration to participate in the web dialogue was open to all.
Participants could take part at any time of day or night during the
four-day dialogue. Information about each participant was linked to his
or her name and message. This included his or her role in the dialogue,
the body of water he or she lived closest to, and his or her interest in
the waters of the Great Lakes. A daily summary was prepared, linked to
the agenda, and sent to all registered participants at the start of each
day.

**Lessons Learned**

**Authenticity and transparency:** The public consultation must be
authentic and transparent. IJC Commissioners were visible participants
during the dialogue, especially to welcome and encourage discussion.
They also prepared a public report synthesizing the public input at the
conclusion of the consultation process.

**Active interaction:** Earlier attempts at online consultation by the
IJC that had relied primarily on participants to generate discussion
were not successful. This dialogue was based on a focused agenda and
specifically invited the public to discuss their views and concerns.

**Attention to the whole communications context:** The dialogue was
designed as an integral part of the public engagement process, not an
"add-on" and was advertised as such. This approach promoted broad
participation and awareness. Information about the dialogue and the
public involvement process as a whole described how the results of the
process would be available to the public and who in government was
responsible for using it. This contextual clarity helped to keep the
public participation meaningful and prevent misunderstandings about its
significance.

**Role of facilitator:** A trained, fully bilingual facilitator was
active during the dialogue to remind participants of the goals, relate
key points, and identify needed clarifications. This contributed to the
focus and momentum of the discussion.

**Role of panelists:** Each day, between four and six panelists with
expertise related to the day's topic were available to make observations
and answer questions. The panelists also provided a reality check that
helped to ensure the discussion was factually based, as well as
contributing interactivity.

**Convenience of participation:** Members of the public could join the
discussion at any time during the four days. All they needed was to
connect to the Internet and register for the dialogue. Participants
could read through comments and contribute when convenient without
having to participate in the discussion in "real time." Even panelists
found that they were able to take part satisfactorily by floating in and
out of the discussion, while still devoting about half of their time to
their other responsibilities.

**The (mostly) self-governing nature of the discussion:** While many
people participated in the dialogue (283 over the four days), the
discussion was focused and productive; there were a total of 382
postings. People mostly intervened when they had something new to
contribute. Evaluation feedback tells us they had the impression that
they were participating in the dialogue, even if they did not post
comments. Participants engaged each other and, at times, challenged some
of the assertions that others had made. One or two participants tried to
dominate the conversation by repeating their comments, but intervention
by the facilitator was effective in correcting the situation.

**Agenda and daily summaries:** The combination of a carefully designed
agenda that was explicit about the desired outcomes of each topic, and
daily summaries, available each morning, provided participants with a
clear sense of direction and a concise and timely record of the ground
already covered.

**Wide geographic reach:** The expansion of the discussion to include
participants from the entire watershed meant not only increased
participation and the inclusion of upstream and downstream perspectives
in one conversation, but also the generation of international grassroots
input into national governments' decision-making, even in the presence
of two language groups. We believe that this modality has the potential
to expand constituencies, strengthen international organizations, and
improve the quality of solutions to trans-boundary problems.

**The significance of a robust structure:** The web dialogue contained a
structure and process designed to orchestrate productive discussions
among large numbers of participants. The carefully focused agenda,
active participation of experts, availability of online library
resources, well-written daily summaries, and orchestrated communication
with registrants throughout the dialogue all provided the process with
the momentum that made the dialogue effective for asynchronous
participation during 24-hours each day, even when facilitator,
panelists, and staff were not available to monitor or intervene.

**Invitation to the Dialogue Website**

The Great Lakes Water Quality Web Dialogue archive can be viewed at
[www.webdialogues.net/ijc/greatlakes](http://www.webdialogues.net/ijc/greatlakes).
No registration is necessary.

*Frank Bevacqua is the Public Affairs Officer for the International
Joint Commission of Canada and the United States (IJC). Paula
Fedeski-Koundakjian was a Public Affairs Advisor for the Canadian IJC.
Laurie Maak is a Web Dialogue Developer and Manager, WestEd; Nicholas
Dewar is a senior facilitator at Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. For
additional Information contact <BevacquaF@Washington.IJC.org>.*

Engaging Your Public in Today's World

By Dan Bevarly

Senior Director

Business Development

Neighborhood America

As U.S. presidential contenders travel the nation seeking the early
support of American voters, they continue to rely heavily on the
cornerstone of our democratic society -- the town hall meeting. Why?
Because participatory governance is the foundation of our nation -- a
government created by the people, for the people.

But away from the campaign trail and out of view from the camera lens,
the town hall meeting of old has become a rather antiquated form of
citizen engagement. The concept is timeless---reaching out to local
citizens, giving them an opportunity to voice their opinions, and using
that information to help make decisions. It's the reality that has
changed over the years.

**An Evolving Timeline**

Years ago, residents filled the forum halls to enjoy coffee and donuts,
along with constructive dialogue with local officials. Today, however,
those same halls are largely empty--aside from the vocal majority that
never seem to miss a beat, but who also do not typically represent the
majority. Few people can afford the opportunity cost of attending such
meetings, and not even the lure of donuts can pull busy citizens away
from the countless obligations vying for their time.

Enter the web. The Internet offered a unique opportunity to complement
the traditional public meeting forum and to achieve more representative
participation. Both the actual cost (data and computer use) and
opportunity cost (time) of electronic communication with government have
been reduced to nearly zero. Web-based public participation
efforts---edemocracy--- at first blush represented the newest and most
powerful means to attain greater inclusion.

However, this low cost vehicle for communication has proven to be a
double-edged sword. In 2004, for example, when the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency solicited public feedback for a proposed rule that
would limit mercury output from power plants, it received over 540,000
comments over the Internet. Almost 173,000 were from one single
website---an online political action group---that allowed citizens to
simply click a button and send a form e-mail. The problem is no longer
attaining inclusion (as it was with the town hall). It is managing
inclusion.

Thus, while the basic strategy for government involves opening up to
allow electronic citizen interaction, the overall strategy must find a
way to marry the best of both worlds: the meaningful interaction that
takes place in a traditional town hall with the opportunity for
widespread citizen inclusion that can be accomplished via the web.

**Success Stories**

The power of the web can be successfully leveraged with "Software as a
Service" ("SaaS") solutions. Delivered via the web without the need to
purchase additional hardware or software, these solutions can be
deployed quickly and typically include 1) the software application; 2)
hosting; and 3) services such as customer support and training.

Both the public and private sectors are rapidly adopting SaaS solutions
because they offer a cost- effective alternative to building in-house
systems and are easy to deploy. Consider the ease of using perhaps one
of the best-known SaaS models: Google.

There are some shining examples of agencies fully tapping into the power
of the web to engage citizens more effectively. Take note, America--the
promise of e-democracy is not just on the horizon. As the following
cases illustrate, the future is already here.

**Local Government**

A small team with the Atlanta Development Authority was charged with the
monumental task of planning for the Atlanta Beltline---a proposed
22-mile loop that will encircle the downtown and midtown areas of
Atlanta, connecting diverse neighborhoods that had never before been
unified. To ensure all constituents in the surrounding areas were
offered inclusion and received consistent messages, a "Software as a
Service" solution was deployed.

It allowed planners to capture the diverse views of residents,
understand immediately how the public felt about proposed plans,
proactively adapt plans when necessary, and easily identify new ideas
that had not previously been considered.

City planners received input via the web from over 10,000 residents in
just six weeks. The software enabled planners to receive fast, accurate,
and structured information and reports for quick decision-making, which
served to accelerate the planning process.

This magnitude of community participation could not have been achieved
through the traditional town hall meeting forum, nor could the small
team staff have devoted the amount of time it would have taken to read
and make sense of 10,000 emails. In sharp contrast, the results were
nearly immediate, decisions were inclusive of citizens' input, and
credible reports were generated to support overall recommendations.

**Federal Government**

When the Citizens' Health Care Working Group (CHCWG) was charged with
presenting recommendations to the U.S. Congress for national health care
reform, its strategy for inclusion integrated two primary approaches: 1)
traditional community meetings to be held in approximately 60 cities;
and 2) web outreach.

While the community meetings were essential to reach key target
audiences, the online interaction empowered the working group to not
only quadruple the participation rate, but also to do so at a fraction
of the cost. Factoring in the costs associated with implementing both
outreach strategies, the ultimate cost to government for the community
meetings was \$250 per participant -- versus a mere \$7.50 per online
participant.

**Communities: The Catalyst for Change**

Although these success stories are widely diverse--in scope, geographic
reach, and purpose--the one consistent factor that contributed to the
success of each was the ability to create high-value "communities"
around the issues at hand.

In the Atlanta example, local officials engaged residents to educate
them, nurture common interests, and ultimately build support from them
for the project. And the team behind the CHCWG created a community of
American citizens with an interest in shaping the future of our nation's
health care system.

The key in both scenarios is the basic understanding that communities
are not crowds, but rather strategic entities that can be relied upon to
add value to decisions. Our experience has continually shown us that
these high-value communities are formed only when 1) the opportunities
for participation are meaningful (in other words, their input is valued
and listened to); and 2) when it is convenient for them to do so.

Technology must provide the infrastructure that does not compromise the
structure and integrity of governmental processes. However, equally
important is the ability to adapt to the rising expectations among
citizens to influence decisions via the web---and to do so in ways that
citizens have grown accustomed to. The desire to collaborate and share
ideas online has become a way of life. If governments desire greater
citizen participation, they must adapt to the changing expectations and
preferences among constituents.

The right technology solution can provide the infrastructure needed: to
bring like-minded citizens together

online; to enable the sharing of insights and ideas; to allow for the
uploading of relevant content such as video comments, photos, and even
mobile phone content; and ultimately to provide the value needed to
really connect with citizens and better understand their needs.

**Conclusion**

As the web world changes, so too must the ways in which we engage the
public. Citizens are becoming increasingly mobile, creating challenges
for governments trying to reach them. Whether initiatives span local,
state, or federal government, the right technology can help ensure that
government entities are prepared to manage and effectively utilize this
new world of citizen engagement.

*Dan Bevarly is Senior Director of Business Development for Neighborhood
America. For additional information contact Kristi Grigsby; (239)
591-6811 <kgrigsby@neighborhoodamerica.com>*

Think It's Easy to Balance the State

Budget? Click Here.

California Budget Challenge Team

NextTen.org

What does the average person know about writing and passing a state
budget? According to a recent Public Policy Institute of California
poll, not much. The poll found that 68% of likely voters in California
cannot identify the state's largest budget spending item as K-12
education and 63% cannot identify the largest revenue source as personal
income tax. "Next Ten," a non-profit, non-partisan organization, is
working to reverse this trend through a unique, online educational tool
called the "California Budget Challenge."

"The budget is about people; it is not just a collection of numbers. We
want Californians to understand that budget decisions greatly affect our
infrastructure, our schools, our taxes, our criminal justice system, and
our healthcare," said F. Noel Perry, the venture capitalist and
philanthropist who founded Next Ten.

The California Budget Challenge allows users to log on through Next
Ten's website at www.nextten.org, get a brief lesson in budget basics,
and then create their own version of the state budget, line by line.
Users work through nine different spending policy options that determine
funding for K-12 education, higher education fees and access, state
healthcare programs, environmental policies, criminal justice spending,
unemployment programs, and the size of the budget reserve. Next, users
work through revenue policy options that determine income, sales, car,
corporate, property, gas, and carbon tax levels.

The Budget Challenge provides non-partisan background information on
each policy choice so budget builders can weigh their options and make
informed decisions. As users make their way through the budget process,
a "budget meter" tracks the deficit or surplus being created, so users
will immediately see and understand the fiscal impact of their choices.
During the budget building process, Challenge users are able to let
state leaders know their views on different policy choices by clicking
on the "Take Action" button.

"Leaders at the highest level of our state government are hearing from
Budget Challenge users on vital policy decisions. Because of the Budget
Challenge, voters don't have to wait until Election Day to make their
voices heard," said Leon Panetta, former White House Chief of Staff to
President Bill Clinton and senior advisor to Next Ten.

Since its launch in 2005, more than 40,000 users have taken the Budget
Challenge. People from all walks of life are logging on and struggling
with some of the same trade-offs state budget policymakers are required
to make. Next Ten is working with organizations like the League of Women
Voters, PTA, and California Libraries to spread the word about the
Budget Challenge. This innovative educational tool has been used in
classrooms throughout the state to teach high school and college
students about the budget decision-making process and current policy
issues. Its popularity, accessible format, and educational value have
led several organizations in other states to look into adopting the
Budget Challenge for their constituents.

"Californians need more information about the state budget, and the
California Budget Challenge brings this important political process
right into your home," says Next Ten founder Perry. To further engage
Californians in the state budget process, the Budget Challenge is going
on the road. Recently, a budget forum was held in Oakland, California.
More than 125 students, business and civic leaders, educators, local
government representatives, and community members from around the San
Francisco Bay Area worked together to create their own version of the
state budget. Participants used instant response keypads to make choices
on 56 different policies. The "Town Hall forum was dynamic, fun, and
very educational. We passed a balanced budget," said Ericka Erickson,
Programs Director for the Grassroots Leadership Network of Marin.
Similar forums across the state are planned and results from all forums
will be presented to California's top state leaders.

*To learn more about the California Budget Challenge log on to
www.nextten.org and build a version of the California state budget.*

E-Democracy in Action:

Locally Driven Conservation

By Ann Morrill

Contributing Writer

The Trust for Public Land

In rapidly developing communities, it is often hard to see beyond one's
own backyard. What lies behind the new homes on the hill or on the other
side of the open fields? Further, what will happen to that farm land
"for sale" between this town and the next, and how might its loss impact
traffic or important wildlife corridors? How can citizens voice their
concerns about the places and resources that brought many to the area in
the first place, and how does a community gauge what its conservation
priorities will be?

A unique, collaborative process developed by The Trust for Public Land
(www.tpl.org) called TPL Greenprinting is helping communities grapple
with these complex questions. Greenprinting involves

Geographic Information System (GIS) models that compile data on the
natural resources a community has prioritized. Greenprinting can then
help community stakeholders better understand the lands and resources
that most need protection and provide a framework for towns and regions
to work together toward common goals. It can also promote public support
for specific measures or fundraising efforts to help meet the
conservation goals.

According to Breece Robertson, TPL's Director of Geographic Information
Systems, a town, region, or land trust might contact TPL to initiate a
Greenprint when they need to revise their comprehensive plan, to get a
better grasp on rapid development, or to understand how development
might impact a specific resource, such as the availability and quality
of their water supplies. To create the Greenprint, TPL works with
community members to facilitate strategic meetings where the community
identifies a steering committee and defines who the broader stakeholder
team will be. Robertson emphasizes that it is up to each individual
community to determine these stakeholders ---it

might include the general public or it might be elected officials,
planners, and community-based organizations--- noting that many towns
have already held public meetings and gathered polling information
around conservation issues before contacting TPL. At these stakeholder
meetings, citizens discuss their goals, such as park equity, water
quality, or wildlife conservation, and choose a locally-based Technical
Advisory Team (TAT). The TAT and the Trust then work to identify data
sources, gather data, and work out how the customized GIS Greenprint
should be modeled.

After the initial models are created, additional meetings are held. Here
the TPL Greenprint team uses GIS interactively to work with stakeholders
to comment and apply priorities to conservation goals through a
weighting system. For example, if protecting water quality is the most
important goal, then the model will weigh the data to develop scenarios
that best protect water quality. High scores are given to parcels with
certain soil types, topography, and land uses that offer better
protection opportunities. Robertson comments that when stakeholders can
visualize through the GIS maps how their conservation priorities
converge on the ground, then they become fully engaged, adding that this
is where compelling community involvement in the process often truly
begins.

Tim Abbott, TPL Director of the Litchfield Hills Greenprint Project in
northern Connecticut, believes that

Greenprinting is unique. It is not exclusively a TPL product or delivery
of a product, but rather a jointly branded and created model that
depends on a long-term investment in both place and mission. Interaction
with the GIS Greenprint allows a group of communities to look at their
resources and conservation goals with more than just an emotional
response and helps them to better understand how to choose among many
valid conservation values. Abbott emphasizes that TPL does not go into
meetings with stakeholders with preconceived ideas, but rather the
approach is "I listen and you talk."

In the case of Litchfield Hills, an area which encompasses 27 towns on
close to 600,000 acres in northern Connecticut, the initial stakeholders
included the general public. The Housatonic Valley Association (HVA) is
the conservation organization for the Housatonic River Valley, which
includes Litchfield Hills. HVA held several widely publicized meetings
in collaboration with TPL when they recognized the need to get a better
handle on increasingly fast-paced development, loss of farmlands, and
shrinking open spaces.

Instead of towns and land trusts individually responding to local
crises, Abbott notes that Greenprinting allows for "proactive
conservation." As part of the Litchfield Hills Greenprint, the Trust and
the Technical Advisory Team created regional and town-specific threat
maps that demonstrated what lands were most likely to be targeted for
development. This information helped individual town commissions and
other stakeholders to determine the most vulnerable and significant
lands. Smaller towns and land trusts can be individually overwhelmed by
the costs and energy involved in saving significant farmland or open
space, remarks Abbott, adding that "Greenprinting allows them to invest
in a concept across landscapes, which makes it easier to target
funding."

If e-democracy can be defined as access to and encouragement of online
citizen collaboration in shaping government policies, TPL Greenprints
contribute both through the citizen deliberations that are integral to
creating the GIS model and the flexible nature of the model itself. On
the Litchfield Hills Greenprint site
(<http://www.tpl.org/ct_litchfield/>), an Internet Mapping Service (IMS)
makes it possible for anyone with Internet access to choose a town or
county and display several features individually or as overlaps. Site
visitors can see existing roads and trails or existing parks and
preserves, as well as projected features. Moreover, if a community or
region finds that their conservation priorities or specific data have
changed, these changes can be easily incorporated into the model by
adding new data and re-running the model. The model becomes a "living"
decision-support tool for the community for years to come.

At present, The Trust for Public Land has completed 44 Greenprints
around the country and has dozens mre underway. According to TPL, many
have led to permanently protected land, new public funding for
conservation, and the development of new parks, playgrounds, and
greenways. In upcoming TPL Greenprinting projects, an IMS component
provides an avenue for even broader public involvement in prioritizing
land conservation issues. The IMS allows stakeholders to add and tweak
information directly to the Greenprint, write comments or queries
online, as well as mark up overview maps that display parcel priority
rankings based on a community's specific goals.

In addition to Greenprinting, TPL's Conservation Services help all
levels of government secure funds for conservation, and serve as an
independent principal in conservation real estate transactions. TPL also
researches conservation issues and publicizes their findings in order to
educate conservation professionals and garner public support for good
public policy at the local, state, and federal levels.

*For more information about the Trust for Public Land's Greenprinting or
other conservation services, contact Will*

*Abberger in the East (<will.abberger@tpl.org>), Milton Ospina in the
West (milton.ospina@tpl.org), or visit
[www.tpl.org/services](http://www.tpl.org/services).*

Federal Blogging Is Poised to Take Off

By John Kamensky

Senior Fellow

IBM Center for The Business of Government

Snce the dawn of the 21^st^ century---just seven short years ago---how
we communicate as a society has begun to change rapidly. One example is
the "blog," short for "web log." Over 60 million individuals now
maintain a blog---a user-generated online journal updated regularly by
the author. Even more participate in social networks such as Facebook,
MySpace, and Second Life, all of which allow interactivity among their
users.

Government, however, has been more cautious in entering this new world.
A recent report by Dr. David Wyld, "The Blogging Revolution: Government
in the Age of Web 2.0," describes what the author terms "blogoneers,"
pioneers in the use of blogs in government. It documents the early
stages of government blogging and provides a concise summary of how it
has already moved from a teen and college student phenomenon to the
corporate world, with government poised to be the next wave of users.

**Blogging: A New Interactive Communication Tool**

Dr. Wyld examines the phenomenon of blogging in the context of the
larger revolutionary forces at work in the second-generation Internet,
where interactivity among users is key. Wyld observes that blogging is
growing as a tool for promoting not only online engagement of citizens
and public servants, but also offline engagement. He describes blogging
activities by members of Congress, governors, city mayors, and police
and fire departments in which they engage directly with the public. He
also talks about activist citizen bloggers who have organized successful
campaigns leading to the adoption of legislation.

Less well-known is that blogging is now being used internally by the
federal government. For example, Marine General James Cartwright,
commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, observed "When al Qaeda can
outmaneuver you using Yahoo, we've got something wrong here." In
response, he provides a real-time, secure blog to connect generals and
warfighters. "The metric is what the person has to contribute, not the
person's rank, age, or level of experience. If they have the answer, I
want the answer. When I post a question on my blog, I expect the person
with the answer to post back." Other agencies launching blogs include
the Patent and Trademark Office, which allows comments on pending
patents, and the Library of Congress, which offers interactivity for
online discussions of history and poetry.

**Blogging 101**

A blog can be updated regularly, with entries typically displayed in
chronological order. The blogging phenomenon took off four years ago and
has migrated from the purview of teens and college students to
mainstream businesses and government. Every hour, more than 54,000 posts
are made to blogs.

Wyld's report chronicles the evolution of blogs as a new phenomenon in
government. He catalogs more than 400 blogs created by elected
leaders---members of Congress, governors, mayors, and others. He also
summarizes lessons by blogging pioneers in the public and corporate
worlds on how to be successful in the "blogosphere." Dr. Wyld distills
these lessons into 10 blogging tips for government executives and
encourages them to "just do it."

**10 Tips for New Bloggers:**

**• Tip 1:** Define yourself and your purpose. State the reason for your
blog.

**• Tip 2:** Do it yourself! Readers can detect authenticity.

**• Tip 3:** Make a time commitment. You have to make time available to
both post and read comments.

**• Tip 4:** Be regular. If you don't post at least twice a week, people
will quit reading.

**• Tip 5:** Be generous. Take the opportunity to highlight others, not
just yourself.

**• Tip 6:** Have a "hard hide." You will receive comments that are
unpleasant.

**• Tip 7:** Spell-check.

**• Tip 8:** Don't provide too much information. Who cares what you had
for breakfast!

**• Tip 9:** Consider multimedia. Video and audio are now the cutting
edge.

**• Tip 10:** Be a student of blogging. Read others' blogs and benchmark
against the best.

**What Is Web 2.0?**

Web 2.0 is the new and broader Internet phenomenon, of which blogging is
but one tool. Web 2.0 is characterized by the rise of user-generated
content on the Internet, where users no longer need to know anything
about computer programming to enter content. Dr. Wyld notes that his
report is a snapshot of the early stages of Web 2.0, where blogging is
the most publicized technology used to create social networks. He also
points to other Web 2.0 technologies, such as the creation of
wikis--where thousands of users can jointly collaborate in creating
something such as the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Another
fast-growing Web 2.0 phenomenon is 3-D immersive experiences, such as
Second Life, where users assume a "virtual identity" and have a personal
avatar--an animated character -- that can shop, play, and learn online.
About 70 universities use Second Life to conduct online seminars.
Companies use it to conduct employee meetings. Government may someday
use it or something like it to deliver services.

*John Kamensky is a senior fellow at the IBM Center for The Business of
Government, which sponsors research by academics on cutting edge
challenges facing government managers. For additional information
contact <john.kamensky@us.ibm.com>. For a copy of "The Blogging
Revolution: Government in the Age of Web 2.0," call*

*(202) 515-4504 or download a copy at:
[www.businessofgovernment.org](http://www.businessofgovernment.org/).*

Uploading Democracy: Candidates Field YouTube Questions

By Richard Auxier and Alec Tyson

Pew Research Center

The July 23, 2007, debate with U.S. Democratic party presidential
candidates, held at the Citadel in Charleston, SC, was widely
anticipated for its groundbreaking format. For the first time,
individuals could submit video questions via YouTube; the questions
would be shown on-screen and answered by the candidates. The submissions
varied in content and presentation and engaged the candidates on a wide
range of issues, some of which had not been addressed in previous
Democratic debates. What follows is an analysis of the format and major
themes of the debate as compared with public opinion data.

**The Technology**

Even before the CNN/YouTube debate, the importance of the Internet in
politics and elections was well established. In the 2006 midterm
elections, 31% of the public used the Internet to get political news and
information and to e-mail others to discuss the race. Surveys by the Pew
Internet & American Life Project found that 15% of Americans used the
Internet as their primary source for campaign news in 2006, more than
double the percentage that did so in the 2002 midterm elections (7%).

The debate highlighted the emerging role of online videos in the 2008
presidential campaign. Some 15% of adult Internet users report having
watched or downloaded political videos online, and 2% report doing so on
a typical day. Recent popular campaign videos have included Hillary and
Bill Clinton's parody of the final episode of "The Sopranos," "I got a
crush on Obama," John McCain joking about bombing Iran, and a tape of
John Edwards combing his hair. Fully 44% of the public have heard of at
least one of the four videos and 27% have seen at least one.

**The Questions**

The YouTube format gave voice to a range of citizens not normally heard
on the presidential debate stage. Considering that a 62% majority of the
public disagrees with the statement "most elected officials care what
people like me think," it was not surprising that a current of
skepticism toward government ran through many of the questions---a sense
that little ever changes in Washington and that government today is not
run for the benefit of all people.

Excerpts from the questions include:

**•** What's going to make you any more effectual...how are you going to
be any different?"

**•** "Partisanship played a major role in why nothing can be done in
Washington today."

**•** "I know you all are going to run around this question, dipping and
dodging, so let's see how far you all can get."

**•** "Is the reason why we are still in Iraq...due to the Democrats'
fear that blame for the loss of the war will be placed on them by the
Republican spin machine?"

**•** "I'd like to know if you plan to defend that statement, or if
you're just going to flip-flop."

**•** "Congress seems to never have a problem when it comes time to give
themselves a raise. But when it

came time to increase the minimum wage, they had a problem."

**•** "...Yet everything is business as usual in D.C."

**•** "How would electing you, a Clinton, constitute the type of change
in Washington so many people in the heartland are yearning for..."

Recent polling by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
shows that much of the frustration expressed by the YouTube questioners
is widely held by the public.

Fully 79% of Americans agree that "generally speaking, elected officials
in Washington lose touch with the people pretty quickly." This belief is
widely held across demographic groups, and Republicans are as likely as
Democrats to agree with the statement. It comes as little surprise then
that, while Americans are evenly split (45% to 46%) in having a
favorable or unfavorable overall opinion of the federal government in
Washington, the public is twice as likely to have a very unfavorable
opinion of the federal government

(15%) as it is to have a very favorable opinion (7%).

The public also shares doubts about the competency and role of
government. More than six in ten

Americans (62%) say that when something is run by the government, it is
usually inefficient and wasteful.

And a 52% majority does not believe that "the government is really run
for the benefit of all the people," though on this point Democrats (58%)
are much more likely than Republicans (36%) to disagree. Additionally,
63% of Americans say that "you can trust the government in Washington to
do what is right" only some of the time.

Despite the cynicism expressed by the YouTube questions---and shared by
the public---seven-in-ten

Americans (71%) still believe that "voting gives people like me some say
about how government runs things." This helps explain why individuals
took the time to submit around 3,000 video questions---though skepticism
towards candidates and Washington exists, the public still views the
election process as a way to have their voice heard.

*Alec Tyson is a Communication Assistant for PEW Research Center and
Richard Auxier is a Research Assistant for*

*PewResearch.org. For additional information, go to
[www.pewresearch.org](http://www.pewresearch.org/) or contact
<atyson@pewresearch.org> or*

*<rauxier@pewresearch.org>.*

CDC in Second Life

By John Anderton, PhD, MPA

Associate Director for Communications Science

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) have increased in visual detail
and complexity, thanks to the emergence and diffusion of excellent
computer graphics cards and high-speed Internet connectivity, but as
social networks they remain in adolescence. Victorianera mechanical
devices, such as the telegraph, facilitated not only rapid information
transmission but social exchange among persons far distant from one
another. Twentieth century technology went beyond signals to sounds and
visuals to enable even greater connectedness between persons and events
throughout the world. Science fiction literature presaged technical
innovation with classics such as "Tom Swift and his Wireless Message,"
by Victor Appleton (1911), and offered glimpses of societal dystopias
such as in "Logan's Run," by William

Nolan (1967),\* and "Snow Crash," by Neal Stephenson (1992).\*
Technologically advanced societies teeming with persons pursuing their
interests amid sinister undercurrents of social control are recurring
themes in this literature.

The arrival of the Internet and the concomitant explosion of available
information have influenced this social paradigm. Websites abound that
offer social spaces for persons to meet, mix, and mingle. The emergence
of online communities also facilitated not only human interaction, but
disease transmission in real life, as persons who meet in virtual spaces
can and do continue online relationships into the real world. Health
promotion around prevention of syphilis has used the venue of Internet
chatrooms to influence persons to prevent transmission of disease when
moving from virtual to actual sex.

Hygeia Philo (Greek for 'lover of health') is the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) lead avatar in the virtual world of Second
Life.\* Second Life is a visual, three-dimensional, virtual space called
a "metaverse," a term coined by Neal Stephenson. Carrying CDC's mission
into this new frontier, Hygeia has hosted a health fair and staffed a
traveling health exhibit. Hygeia is now a permanent web location that
conducts health education and provides web links to CDC information such
as the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, health podcasts, the
Public Health Image Library, and other CDC resources.

CDC has been active in Second Life since July 2006 and is preparing to
expand its presence there this fall.

Social networking and interaction are key elements of metaverse
involvement. Participation in this new channel for information
dissemination adds to CDC's traditional tools and methods of reaching
specialized audiences. The photograph accompanying this article shows
Hygeia and other avatars in Second Life, but there are thousands of
other places where participants can meet and interact in this and other
virtual worlds. Whyville\* is another example. Each avatar in a virtual
world is connected to a real person with real health issues and needs.
Avatars are giving CDC another avenue to communicate CDC prevention
messages about infectious and chronic diseases. As virtual worlds enter
the mainstream of human interaction, they may mature and evolve into a
whole new form of blended social and educational networking.

*John P. Anderton, PhD, MPA, is Associate Director for Communications
Science, National Center for Public Health*

*Informatics, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For
additional information contact: <JAnderton@cdc.gov>. For more
information about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in
Second Life, visit Juwangsan (215,216,60) in Second Life or at
<http://www.cdc.gov/about/stateofcdc/everywhere/secondLife.htm>.*

Government Information Outreach in Social Media and Virtual Worlds

By Víctor Cid and Laura Bartlett

National Library of Medicine

National Institutes of Health

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

**The Age of Social Media**

The way information is produced, used, and shared on the Internet is
evolving rapidly. "Digital natives," people born in the digital age, are
taking over the Internet and "digital immigrants," those who adopted the

Internet and related technologies later in life, are becoming more
sophisticated Internet users. As this happens, libraries and government
agencies that provide public information find it increasingly difficult
to keep up with the Internet tools cybercitizens use to communicate,
collaborate, and learn. Open

information syndication, "folksonomies" (user-generated web content
taxonomies), blogs, wikis, and many other related technologies empower
people to access, organize, and democratically promote information from
a large number of dissimilar sources, while also becoming themselves
producers of information. Social media, the term used to refer to many
of these online tools and practices, allows people to create virtual
communities and collaborate at an unprecedented scale.

The popularity and success of many social media applications are
creating interest within the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) and
other government agencies. These organizations are exploring the
opportunities and challenges that new Internet technologies can offer to
users of government information and how the technologies can further
agencies' public-service missions. Many organizations are already making
successful use of social media applications to reach specific user
communities and to interact and collaborate in ways not previously
possible. Some libraries, for example, are exploiting social media tools
for collaborating with peers globally to produce innovative information
services and products that can reach a much larger community. Rather
than presenting information under "one user fits all" model,
organizations can use social media tools to transform the information
into a product that fits

individual or specific community needs.

**NLM and the Challenges of Emerging Social Applications**

The National Library of Medicine is the world's largest medical library.
As part of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services, NLM makes available a large number of websites with
authoritative, reliable, openly accessible health and biomedical
information. These information services are accessed by millions of
Internet users from all over the world. NLM also conducts a number of
outreach efforts, nationally and internationally, to promote and educate
people about its health information and to disseminate health
information where it is needed.

Despite the popularity of social media, some government agencies are
blocking their employees' access to many social tools, because of
security concerns and the possibility of abuses and other government
policy violations. Since there are no guidelines for the appropriate use
of social networking and related technologies for government purposes,
many agencies abstain from exploring their benefits. The social media
landscape is evolving, and some of these technologies and their
information content change rapidly. The strict quality and reliability
standards of government agencies demand a cautious adoption of new
technologies, especially of social media technologies that have yet to
prove they are mature and reliable enough to support the role of the
government.

**Social Media in the Web 2.0 Context**

Social media is one of the defining characteristics of Web 2.0, a term
used to describe the set of technologies, applications, and other
elements defining the current stage of evolution of the Internet. The
term encompasses the change from a "flat" web model to a highly dynamic
mix of rich applications. These latest technologies enable a much higher
participatory role for users in the generation of information content
and a new level of interactivity of users with information and among
themselves, among other features.

Social media involves a wide range of technologies and services,
including blogs (Blogger, Blogflux, etc.); wikis (Wikipedia, Wikia,
Wetpaint, etc); social networking sites (MySpace, facebook.com,
gather.com, etc.); video and picture sharing sites (YouTube, Flickr,
Google Video, etc.); social bookmarking sites (del.icio.us, Digg,
reddit, etc.); chat services (Yahoo! Chat, Skype, Windows Live
Messenger, Gmail chat, etc.); virtual worlds (Second Life, Active
Worlds, There, etc.); as well as podcasts, forums, and others.

**Exploring the Opportunities of Virtual Worlds**

Second Life (SL), created by Linden Labs, is one social media
application that has captured much traditional media attention in the
past few months. In the Second Life virtual world, users interact in a
3-D environment through virtual representations of themselves called
"avatars." Most of the content in this virtual world is created by its
own inhabitants. Participation is free, but a paid subscription is
required for a few advanced features. The highly graphical and
interactive medium allows for an elaborate level of social interaction
and can potentially enable new ways to present, access, and interact
with information. Mechanisms embedded in the virtual world allow its
residents to create applications that communicate with the web, allowing
both virtual environments to converge. Although SL is a very popular
virtual world today, it is not the only such virtual environment on the
Internet. Other prominent ones include Active Worlds, There, and
Entropia Universe. Second Life and other virtual worlds have their own
virtual economy that is connected to the real economy.

A number of government agencies and hundreds of private companies and
universities are already participating in Second Life, and they join
several million users worldwide. For example, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is displaying 3-D simulations of
hurricanes, tsunamis, and other environmental events; the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is providing access to health
information; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) is showcasing 3-D models of its spacecraft. Many organizations
and other groups conduct meetings and other regular activities in this
environment. Political candidates and activists have held virtual
political rallies, and a number of government officials have made live
presentations to the (virtual) public participating in this medium.

The NLM is exploring the capabilities of this virtual environment for
health information outreach and collaboration. Reliable demographic data
about Second Life users is hard to obtain, but from many accounts and
our own observations, SL residents seem to include people of all ages
from 18, which is the minimum age required to participate in the SL
universe to senior citizens. (Note: there is a separate version of SL
for teenagers.) People use the medium for multiple purposes, but mostly
for entertainment and socializing.

NLM is collaborating with other libraries in Second Life to research
effective mechanisms to deliver health information in this 3-D
environment. At the moment, the effort focuses on exploring the
underlying technologies that enable the development and dissemination of
different types of information content in SL; issues involved in
establishing a government presence in this medium; strategies for
promoting health information; and opportunities for inter-organizational
collaboration. It is expected that the findings from this experience can
be applied to a number of NLM efforts. For example, NLM is now working
on the development of a Disaster Health Information Management Research
capability that could benefit from this 3-D environment. Potential
applications in SL include emergency simulations; disaster impact
studies; and demonstrations, response, and mitigation training
exercises, among others.

According to Gartner, Inc., 80% of active Internet users might have some
activities in virtual worlds by 2011, although not necessarily in Second
Life (see <http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=503861>). Linden Labs
is facing increasing competition, as there is growing commercial
interest in virtual world environments. Also, more companies have
announced projects to develop their own virtual reality services, and
new virtual worlds are starting to appear. Second Life is also being
challenged by its own success, as the popularity of the service is often
putting its underlying technological infrastructure under pressure. For
example, the number of SL user accounts has increased by more than 600%
since late October 2006.

**Conclusions**

The potential benefits of social media for government information
dissemination and collaborative work are yet to be fully determined, but
there are already studies and exercises underway to explore these
technologies and their challenges. It appears that virtual worlds are
here to stay. As the underlying technologies (such as broadband Internet
access, computing power, graphical software applications, and
computer-human interfaces) evolve, they may well become ubiquitous tools
that can revolutionize government services, citizens' participation in
government, and more.

*Victor Cid is a Staff Computer Scientist and Laura Bartlett a Technical
Information Specialist with the Office of Outreach and Special
Populations of the Specialized Information Services Division of the
National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. They can be reached at
<cidv@nlm.nih.gov> and <bartlettl@nlm.nih.gov>. For more information,
visit the websites of the U.S. National Library of Medicine at
[http://www.nlm.nih.gov](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/) and Second Life at*

*[http://www.secondlife.com](http://www.secondlife.com/).*

Government Participation in Social Networks: Joining the Conversation

By Kevin Novak

Director of Web Services

Office of Strategic Initiatives

Library of Congress

Over the last decade, the world has dramatically changed. Because of the
World Wide Web people are easily able to create new online communities
and conversations, which allow them to create new relationships as well
as supplement existing ones. The principle of participatory volunteerism
is moving people to reach out, interact, contribute, and relate to the
world in new ways. With the web, people can be exposed to new ideas and
information in unprecedented ways. Young and old are integrating
technology, the web, and mobile devices into their daily lives. This
greater exposure to information and technology is leading to continual
innovation. The challenge before government agencies is to investigate
new technologies and determine which communities and conversations to
join within the parameters of proper government conduct and policy.

Many have questioned the value proposition of online communities and
social networks. Usage statistics demonstrate that people want to
utilize social networks and learn about their applications. For example,
according to the social networking site Facebook, 50% of the site's
users sign on everyday, and Facebook expects to have 50 million active
users by the end of 2007.1 In general, online communities connect
individuals around the world and make individual opinions and insights
of the "common" person more easily publishable and accessible and thus
more valuable and important. The government, as an authoritative source
of information and content, must react, prepare, and meet these changing
user expectations by engaging in many different environments,
communities, and conversations.

**A Government Agency in an Online and Networked World**

Government agencies have a responsibility to provide authoritative
information in a way that is effective and relevant to the citizenry
they are called to serve. Over one billion people are now on the
Internet worldwide and 77% of Americans ages 12 and older go online at
least once a day. In recognition of this growing usage, the Library of
Congress has undertaken a number of initiatives, some launched and
others forthcoming, to utilize online communities to enhance citizen
discovery of content in the Library's online collections. The goal is to
enrich the user experience with authentic and authoritative information
from a trustworthy source. The initiatives include the recently launched
Library blog and over 20 RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds providing
content and information. Coming in the fall of 2007 will be a pilot with
"Flickr" to build our collection data with social tagging; the
availability of widgets that can be taken and posted to personalized
individual pages (i.e. Facebook, iGoogle) that highlight content from
the collections; improvements to search and discovery; podcasts
highlighting the Library's collections and curatorial expertise of our
staff; and the consideration of a pilot in the virtual world of Second
Life. We are moving forward in these spaces and technologies to meet our
users in their environments, recognizing the dynamic change of the
active, as opposed to the passive, web.

**Starting Conversations**

Conversations are what the government should be seeking. They can take
many forms and can result in many different types of input and feedback
that assist agencies with meeting their missions.

Blogging is a social phenomenon that has just begun to be cautiously
explored within the federal community. The unique benefit of a blog
derives from the blogger's informal, personal voice and perspective,
which can put a human face on a government agency, allow
behind-the-scenes institutional transparency, and provide opportunities
for conversation and relationship-building. The Library launched its
blog in April of 2007. Having these conversations with our users has
extended the Library's reach into new constituencies, exposed the deeper
parts of the Library's online collections to readers who might otherwise
never penetrate beyond the top-level pages, and contributed to the
worldwide store of knowledge. The effort has resulted in positive
feedback and has provided the Library with new users and attention. The
blog has quickly moved from being the 70,000th-most popular blog, as
ranked by Technorati, to the 31,000th-most popular blog out of 70
million tracked. This demonstrates that the online communities are
hungry for conversation and community with agencies, meeting them in
their world and in their environments.

Social tagging allows users to tag content with keywords they find
meaningful as a tool for categorization, retrieval, and sharing. Tagging
also benefits the institution that owns the material. While institutions
are the curators of the collections and information, they cannot
anticipate every way that a user may request that information. Social
tagging gives an institution, like the Library, an opportunity to build
a repository of user-identified keywords for items within a collection.

And as with blogging, social tagging allows the Library to have a
conversation with its users. Let's say that the Library has collections
of photos with little identifying information. One of the photos could
be of military personnel standing by an aircraft carrier in the Pacific.
We may not know key information, such as who is in the photo. Tagging
allows our users to help us better describe and identify who and what is
in the photo. With social tagging, users may finally be able to retrieve
that photo in a search.

**Conclusion**

Online communities and conversations are starting everyday. Blogging and
social tagging are just two potential places to start. Government has a
responsibility to provide information in a relevant and effective way to
the citizens it serves. To reach our users, we must be where they are in
the online environment. Government must now join the communities and
conversations that are taking place online or risk becoming an
irrelevant resource.

*Kevin Novak is the Director of Web Services for the Library of
Congress. For additional information contact <knov@loc.gov>.*

Click-Through Democracy1

By Dr. Stuart W. Shulman

Assistant Professor

University of Pittsburgh

Several large scale electronic public comment campaigns are underway or
have recently concluded. Whether on behalf of Peruvian jaguars, Rocky
Mountain gray wolves, adorable sea otters, or some other photogenic
cause, someone, somewhere is probably sending an e-mail expressing their
outrage, fear, sorrow, hopes, or dreams. There is a political and
administrative debate brewing about whether these proliferating comment
campaigns are simply anomalies or worrisome harbingers of a slide into a
technological arms race predicated on plebiscite-style governance.

Most opportunities for public comment to federal agencies garner only
modest citizen input. It is a rare proposed rule, advance notice, or
agency decision that generates an avalanche of comments, electronic or
paper. Yet the potential is there for large-scale, continuous
emobilizations generating virtually uninterrupted streams of e-mail
messages directed at diverse agency personnel. Indeed, we probably
already are in a state of permanent emobilization. The most interesting
question may be whether this emergent form of democratic activism will
grow only incrementally or geometrically before it is ultimately
neutralized or transformed.2

The now familiar "Action Alert Center" web pages are permanent features
on many "Tell-a-Friend" and

"Donate" pages. Alert centers can carry a wide range of issue-oriented
campaigns simultaneously.3The

Internet-based tools that generate and manage these citizen comments are
sold (not inexpensively) in the

marketplace and shared for free in the open source domain.4These
electronic form letter campaigns, for better or worse, are one of the
principal contributions of online democracy to date in the United
States. Yet, as a form of participation, engagement, and information
dissemination, their virtues and failings remain a puzzle. The most
basic question is: should we welcome or resist this drift toward
click-through democracy?

The standard delivery of the interest group "ask" is very likely
familiar to anyone reading this. In your wisdom, at some point in the
last 5-10 years you gave your name and e-mail address to an interest
group. Perhaps you signed an online petition or responded to a direct
mail campaign. For whatever reason, as a result of the Internet and
widespread database technologies, you are now never more than an
e-activist's click away from receiving something like this:

*If you are like me, thanks to Al Gore's brilliant slide show,5 your
four year old son regularly waddles about the house on all fours as
"cubby" the endangered polar bear searching a vast sea for disappearing
ice*.6Thinking that both your kid and the man-slaughtering but adorable
bears are worth saving, you

just might click the "TAKE ACTION" button, perhaps feeling more than
ever that it is time to 'do something' about global climate change.

The *thing* that you do is proceed directly to web service with a
prewritten e-mail. You are then invited to edit the text of the e-mail
and often compelled (even when it is not required by the agency) to
complete various personal information fields.

The political, organizational, and informational imperatives driving
these campaigns fit neatly under the mobilization umbrella. The member
education, where and when it happens, is likely to be superficial,
pushing the reader headlong toward adversarial thinking. Commenters do
routinely learn from the website designers that "adding their own words"
will "make it more meaningful," however they rarely receive any guidance
about precisely which words will have that effect. It is probably too
much to expect a full lesson in preparing meaningful public comments on
such a website. Nonetheless, it is certainly not too much to expect a
simple user guide prioritizing the generation of thoughtful comments
over invectiveladen tirades.

From the advocacy group point of view, this particular form of
click-through democracy is really about the numbers that measure comment
throughput, increased visibility, membership, and those life-sustaining
donations eked out of a finite pool of e-activist disposable income.
Campaigns using the "Action Alert" model attempt to cash in on the
economics of relatively low cost eactivism and the power of Metcalf's

Law, which posits that the value of a network increases proportional to
the number of subscribers. It is now therefore standard procedure to use
referral systems, listservs, and related constituent and customer
management web services to grow the grassroots of an interest group on
the back of a public comment campaign.

New tools for rules inevitably will end up on the desktops of regulation
writers. As it becomes easier to generate large numbers of comments,
tools such as these will be essential for the smooth and cost-effective
functioning of the regulatory process. The Administrative Procedures Act
derived "notice and comment" process never was intended to be a rote
slog through giant piles of duplicative comments sorted manually by the
shape of the words on a printed page. The applied side of ongoing tools
for rules research
([http://erulemaking.ucsur.pitt.edu](http://erulemaking.ucsur.pitt.edu/))
is eliminating the so-called "plague" of duplicative e-mails that
obfuscates the role of knowledgeable public commenters shaping the views
of experts in federal agencies.

Invariably, new tools for rules also will impact the way various
vendors, interest groups, individual

commenters, and agency personnel view the role of e-mail in the public
comment process. Efforts at manipulating the rulemaking system predate
the digital communications era. It remains to be seen how more
widespread use of duplicate detection and other tools under development
for the Rule Writers' Workbench will alter the tactics used by groups
and vendors who created the existing mass e-mail public comment system.

*Dr. Stuart Shulman is Assistant Professor at the University of
Pittsburgh and Director of the Sara Fine Institute, School of
Information Sciences, and the Director, Qualitative Data Analysis
Program University Center for Social and Urban Research. For additional
information contact <shulman@ucsur.pitt.edu>.*

1 This research was made possible with a National Science Foundation
grants IIS-0429293 "Collaborative Research: Language Processing
Technology for Electronic Rulemaking." Any opinions, findings and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science
Foundation.

2 The author is director of a research group that seeks to harness human
language technologies for the purpose of making large public comment
datasets more intelligible.

3 See the Defenders of Wildlife "Wildlife Action Center," which features
several such campaigns at:
http://action.defenders.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_homepage.

4 See http://www.convio.com/site/PageServer?pagename=prod_advocacy for
an example of the high-end commercial version and
http://organizersdb.org/ for an example of the free option.

5 See http://www.climatecrisis.net/ for the home page of "An
Inconvenient Truth," which of course features a "Take Action" page. To
its credit, the site encourages actions that are not limited to
click-through democratic voice option.

6 The NRDC raised \$300,000 to run an advertisement on CNN
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua8jF1ZPaAU) in hopes of generating
1,000,000 comments on listing the polar bear as threatened. In the ad,
narrated by children, it states: "Some polar bears have to swim so far
they drown. Baby bears have died."

Ten Practical Online Steps for Government Support of Democracy

By Steven Clift

Chair, E-Democracy.org

and Ashoka Fellow

*Q. Does e-government have anything to do with democracy and citizen
participation?*

*A. Let's get straight to the point. Not yet.*

*Q. Should it?*

*A. Yes. Government should be leading the charge into an increasingly
and fundamentally interactive web.*

If you believe in government of, for, and by the people, then
government--- both representative and administrative---should be leading
a charge into the increasingly and fundamentally interactive web.

Access to information, considered the safe starting point for government
accountability online, now mostly presents the public a daunting needle
in a huge haystack. Not only are governments excluding themselves from
the increasingly interactive public lives of citizens, but the
fundamental information access system is so complicated that the
valuable and substantive information that government produces is often
ignored in our increasingly online lives. The lack of real and effective
online access to governance will substantially increase cynicism about
and distrust in government among a public that demands a more
participatory representative democracy.

A bit of context: In the early days of e-government, I coordinated e-gov
initiatives for the state of Minnesota. As a citizen, I independently
started E-Democracy.Org, which created the world's first election
information and discussion website in 1994. When "services first,
democracy later" enveloped most e-government projects, I skedaddled in
late 1997. Since then, I've spoken and consulted across 26 countries on
"E-Democracy."

**Join the Evolution**

Here are the 10 things I would do in government at every level to help
rescue our democracy in the

information age.

**1. Provide timely, personalized access to information that matters.**

Government decision-making information is not really public or relevant
if people cannot act on it when it still matters. Give people tools like
personalized e-mail alerts based on keywords, location, etc. and
eliminate the "nobody told me" backlash government often receives due to
poor public outreach.

**2. Help elected officials receive and sort, then better understand and
respond to, e-mail.**

The number one complaint I hear from elected officials around the world
is about e-mail. Most officials want to respond effectively, but simply
aren't given the tools they need. If there ever was an opportunity for
open source collaboration among governments, this is it. In general, our
representatives and representative institutions must start to invest in
online infrastructure that allows them to connect directly with the
public they represent.

**3. Dedicate at least 10% of new e-government developments to
democracy.**

Let's define democracy starting with public input. In an e-service
initiative, the 10% should start with citizen focus groups to guide the
design of the service. Tools could include usability testing, studies to
generate user input and accountability, and post-transaction user
surveys. If the investment is a new content management system for
information access, then use the 10% to add personalization and survey
input features or democratized navigation---those nifty menus that show
you the top 10 articles or downloads for that week.

**4. Announce all government public meetings on the Internet in a
uniform manner.**

All public meeting notices, agendas, handouts, and digital recordings
must be online. The system should be standards-based and tie
state-by-state systems into a national network covering federal, state,
and local government public meetings. This is the only way for people to
ask to be pro-actively notified of any government public meetings within
a certain geographic area that are addressing topics of specific
interest to them.

**5. Allow citizens to look-up all of their elected officials, from the
very local to the national, in one search.**

Along with the ability to look-up all public meetings, Americans should
have the right to easily learn who all the current elected and appointed
officials are who represent them. Just before elected and appointed
officials assume office, every government unit should be required to
enter contact information for those officials into a national database.

**6. Host online public hearings and dialogues (or "econsultations," as
they are known outside the U.S.).**

As in-person public meetings begin to incorporate live online features,
governments should consider more deliberate online exchanges to improve
the outcomes of the decision-making process. If a government agency
hosts five public hearings across the country or in a state, it should
host the sixth hearing online and improve the format as part of the
process. In 20 years, the legislatures, commissions, and city councils
that do not hold hearings online will be in the minority.

**7. Embrace the rule of law by mandating the most democratically
empowering online services and rights across the whole of government.**

Technology itself is not forcing real institutional democratic change. I
estimate that 90% of the democratic innovations online that really share
power are based on a political tradition or law that existed before the

Internet arrived. If we want all citizens to benefit universally from a
more wired democracy, then now is the time to update our legal
requirements and fund core online democracy services.

**8. Provide access to raw data from decision-making information
systems.**

Let's explode decision-making data---like congressional information and
rulemaking-related content---into bits via XML and open standards and
make it easy to re-use public government data from many sources to
create views and searches that provide insight, understanding, and
accountability. Think "Web 2.0" interactivity built on top of government
data by those outside of government.

**9. Fund open-source sharing internationally across governments.**

Sharing and supporting open source software takes resources. E-Democracy
tools are an ideal starting point, so open-source initiatives that seek
to reduce technology costs and build systems for eventual use by
multiple governments make the most sense. Efforts to place modules and
customizations out for community use will be key. Government and vendors
who sell to government must contribute code back for the wheels of
reciprocal value to start turning.

**10. Local Up -- a strategic approach to building local democracy
online.**

To build e-participation momentum, citizens need to experience results
they can see and touch. By investing in transferable local models and
tools, more people will use the Internet as a tool to strengthen their
communities, protect and enrich their families and neighborhoods, and be
heard in a meaningful way. Every community needs an "online town hall;"
E-Democracy.Org calls them Issues Forums, for agenda-setting discussion
of public issues. Comparative evaluation of access and participation
related online service and content indicators will introduce efforts for
an online \"Democracy Tune-up.\" This same tune-up concept should be
applied at the state and federal level as well.

**Conclusion**

In the early days, folks thought the Internet was inherently democratic.
Parts of it are, but that mistaken sense of technological determinism
has not carried over to make constitutional and legally-based
representative processes more open and responsive. Today, online
"politics as usual" may actually make things worse. Civically conceived
e-participation efforts may first need to counter such negative trends
and also dispel the notion that "online politics" is just an extra
option. Preservation of democratic rights is an important outcome.
E-Democracy has the great potential to support, fulfill, and enhance
this function.

*Stephen Clift leads the Online Consultation and e-Participation online
community of practice at DoWire.org.*

E-Authentication: Safeguarding Citizen Identity

By Georgia Marsh

Acting Program Executive, E-Authentication Program

U.S. General Services Administration, and

Jeff Gallimore

Partner, Excella Consulting

The Internet has touched virtually every aspect of our lives in
countless and different ways. One area where the Internet has made a
substantial impact is in politics -- electronically engaging citizens to
participate in government. The value of increased citizen involvement is
obvious: improved laws and policies, help in setting government
priorities, more informed citizens, and better overall decision-making
in government. However, citizens are concerned about their security and
privacy when they go online.

To realize the benefits of citizen participation, the federal government
must not only provide the applications and information to meaningfully
engage citizens electronically, but also to overcome associated security
and privacy concerns.

Consider the following statistics regarding the demographics, usage, and
attitudes of people using the

Internet:

**•** 71% of adults use the Internet, including 87% of those between the
ages of 18 and 29. (Pew, 2007)

**•** 93 million people visit a government website at least once
annually, and 12.9 million people visit a government website daily.
(Pew, 2006)

**•** 30% of online users have used the Internet to try to change a
government policy or affect a vote on a law. (Pew, 2006)

**•** 1 in 5 people say their last interaction with government was to
express an opinion. (Pew, 2006)

**•** 31% of people got their political information over the Internet in
2006, compared with only 4% in 1996. (Pew, 2006)

**•** 14 million people contributed electronically to political
discussion and activity in 2006. (Pew, 2006)

**•** 92% of Internet users said protecting their identity is important.
(Zogby International, 2007)

**•** 75% of consumers support a single, secure, and private
verification environment. (International Association of Privacy
Professionals, 2004)

We can draw a number of important conclusions from these statistics.
First, citizen involvement in government is becoming increasingly
electronic. Second, providing an electronic channel for engaging
citizens increases their involvement in government. Finally, security
and privacy are important issues to people who are going online -- they
want their personal information to be protected, but they also want that
protection to be simple.

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) has created the
E-Authentication solution to connect individuals, federal agencies,
other governments, and the private sector.

This solution not only recognizes the trends and opportunities of
Internet use, but also responds to the security and privacy concerns of
the people using the Internet. Launched in October 2005 as part of this
solution, the U.S. E-Authentication Identity Federation (or more simply,
the Federation) makes it easy for citizens, businesses, and
representatives of other governments to securely identify themselves
when accessing federal government applications online. The Federation
does this by creating an environment in which federal agencies can rely
on electronic identity credentials (such as user IDs/passwords, and PKI
credentials) issued and managed by other organizations inside and
outside the federal government to verify/validate the identity of the
individuals accessing their online applications.

The Federation itself is made up of numerous federal agency applications
and federal and private sector identity credential service providers
that have adopted a set of common agreements, standards, and
technologies to form a consistent policy framework for the entire
Federation.

This policy framework is based upon existing security and privacy
legislation, government-wide guidance, open standards, and commercial
best practices. These include the E-Government Act of 2002, the Privacy
Act of 1974, memoranda from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
technical guidance from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, and industry standards such as the Security Assertion Markup
Language. GSA has also developed tools to help Federation members
understand and implement the requirements of the policy framework,
including an electronic risk and requirements assessment, a credential
assessment framework, an approved interoperable technology provider
list, and numerous implementation "cookbooks."

The statistics presented earlier show citizens are more likely to access
online government services if they know their personal information is
protected. The counter is also true: security and privacy violations
hurt the adoption of and participation in the Federation. In recognition
of this, the Federation ensures the integrity of the applications and
information within the Federation's operational environment to increase
the trust and participation of its members and endusers. The Federation
does this in a number of different ways.

**•** Federation members take appropriate steps to comply with existing
law, policy, and Federation requirements to protect against unauthorized
access, sharing, and use of personal information.

**•** The Federation adds only trusted credential providers into the
Federation membership.

**•** The Federation provides guidance to assist its members in
balancing the costs and risks associated with security and privacy.

**•** The Federation clearly defines the security and privacy
requirements for participation in the Federation.

**•** The Federation monitors its members to ensure they are employing
the appropriate security and privacy controls.

**•** The Federation defines policies and procedures to handle security
and privacy violations within the Federation.

The recognition that security and privacy are core requirements of the
Federation, coupled with the efficiencies of a common, standard approach
to electronic authentication, has led to steady growth of the
Federation. There are now 21 agencies and more than 50 applications
participating within the Federation, including applications like
Regulations.gov which allows citizens to easily access and participate
in the federal rulemaking process.

The bottom line is the federal government has an opportunity to increase
citizen participation in government by opening up access to its
electronic applications and information. However, the government needs
to do this in a way that is easy for citizens to use and that
effectively addresses their security and privacy concerns. The
E-Authentication solution is one that achieves both of these goals.
Increased adoption of the solution and the Federation's continued growth
will open up the federal government to more meaningful citizen
involvement in a way that protects the privacy of the user and ensures
the security of the federal government's applications and information --
results that are better for everyone.

*Georgia Marsh is the Acting Program Executive, E-Authentication
Program, U.S. General Services Administration. For additional
information contact <georgiak.marsh@gsa.gov> or call (703) 872-8614.
Jeff Gallimore is a Partner at Excella Consulting. For more information
contact <jeff.gallimore@excella.com> or call (703)980-9420.*