legislative participation: a list

[John Wonderlich]

The next list I'd like to tackle is legislative participation.

A number of innovative approaches have appeared in various legislative bodies, inviting public participation in what is arguably the most public of all processes: the creation of public policy.  While these projects vary in scope and effect, they all have granted a new level of access and authenticity to public deliberation, recognizing the public as a capable partner in the process of legislating. 

These are all legislative projects operating with official government sponsorship.  While there is a great deal of valuable work done tracking legislation and developing policy outside government, and also pioneering work developing in Congress for communicating with constituents, I'm focusing here on officially sponsored legislative participation.

• The Open House Project launched with Speaker Pelosi's endorsement, developing a transparency reform agenda for Congress.
• The Irish House of Parliament, the Oirechtas, held an involved "e-consultation" project on their broadcasting bill.  From their site: 
• "The consulters, comprising of members of the Joint Committee of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas e-Consultation Working Group, viewed the e-Consultation pilot as a significant departure from previous practice as it involved a dedicated website which allowed for the posting of submissions in a structured manner as well as a discussion forum and it constituted an attempt to communicate directly with the public on legislation and not just target traditional 'stakeholders'."
• Rep. Honda posted legislation and accepted public commentary on their proposed STEM Act.
• Rep. Kuhl launched a "Fix Washington" project, where citizens proposed legislative priorities.
• Senator Lieberman developed the first E-government Act of 2002 in conjunction with a public Web site that collected priorities and suggestions.  From the accompanying report language:

• On May 18, 2000, Senators Lieberman and Thompson launched an on-line `experiment in interactive legislation', a website that sought public comments on 44 topics related to possible measures that Congress could take to advance the cause of e-government. Topics were organized into categories, such as `centralized leadership', `funding innovations', and `digital democracy: citizen access and participation,' and ranged from `centralized online portal' to `interoperability standards' to `G-Bay': enhanced online distribution of federal government surplus property.' For each of the topics, a short discussion described the status of current efforts and the `New Idea', or ideas, being offered for consideration. Visitors to the website could then submit their comments on the subject, and read views that had been submitted by others. Nearly 1,000 comments were submitted, approximately one half of which were posted on the website after being reviewed by Committee staff.13

  [Footnote] Comments were submitted by private citizens, academicians, federal employees, and even federal agencies. OMB also responded to the website by soliciting views from federal agencies; OMB officials then consolidated agencies' responses and presented them to the Committee as a single document. Opinions, additional information, and alternative proposals submitted over the website proved helpful as Senator Lieberman formulated his electronic government legislation.

  [Footnote] 13Comments were reviewed primarily for appropriateness and relevance; Committee staff did not favor any particular viewpoint in deciding which submissions to post. The website was intended to educate the public about the potential of e-government, to solicit input and information on the many topics being considered for possible legislation, and to serve as both an experiment and an example of how the Internet could be used to make government processes more accessible to the public.

• Senator Dick Durbin held public discussions on Open Left and Redstate, asking the question: "What Should We Include in our National Broadband Strategy?"
• Politicopia is a public wiki, set up in conjunction with the Utah State Legislature's Rules Committee.
• I'm looking for any other examples.  Others that sort of fit:
  
• In a sense, the California initiative process involves citizen participation, although it bypasses more than it augments the legislative process.
• The Peer to Patent Project is probably the best designed example of substantive public involvement, although it isn't legislative.
• Any other suggestions?
  

[John Wonderlich]

[Tom Bruce]

John:

http://wiki.policeact.govt.nz/


t.

[Steven Clift]

A few more examples:

1. http://open-government.mn - The Mongolian Prime Minister shares select draft
legislation for comment for submitting to parliament.

2. The Australian House launched an online strategy to make committee content
more accessible online including e-alerts and the like to try and improve media
coverage of that more deliberative part of the process instead of just conflict
oriented question time.

3. Many moons ago the Minnesota Senate Majority Caucus (DFL) hosted a web forum
on a number of topics to launch a legislative session.

4. The BBC is coming down the pipe with website for tracking/watching video
across the devolved parliaments (NI, Wales, Scotland), the UK Parliament, and
the European Parliament right down to the committee level. I've suggested that
as the future interface to watching parliaments they should think about ways to
host substantial virtual testimony (with user ratings).

5. Along those lines, here is my outline for an Online Committee Room:
http://dowire.org/wiki/Online_Committee_Room

Rather than limiting ourselves to alternative forms on online participation in
legislatures, I'd rather see a focus on taking the authoritative and official
processes and making them "e." So for example, if a House committee holds a
hearing, there should be a way for anyone to submit (with decorum) substantive
testimony (text, audio, video, slides, etc.) for 24-48 hours. The highly visible
online system would need to be designed in a way that the best substantive
expert testimony as well as the authentic first-person "this impacts my life"
testimony rises to the top and is therefore accessible to decision-makers/staff
(and the public). Real names, even biographical information, should be the
standard with a process to apply for veiled testimony as we rarely see in
Congress to protect someone's life.

Cheers,
Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org

P.S. While the examples are old and the links dead, this advice still applies:
http://www.publicus.net/articles/consult.html

[Matthew Burton]

Isn't Estonia the trendsetter?

http://tom.riik.ee

It's in Estonian, but Andy Carvin writes, "they've launched a website, http://tom.riik.ee, called I Decide Today. The site allows the public to file official requests for new policies or legislation. If their recommendation gets rejected, the government is required to give a formal explanation why they made that decision. For example, Estonia never had daylight savings time, because it is so far north. But the public proposed it for a variety of reasons and it was adopted."

[Steven Clift]

Matthew Burton wrote:
> Isn't Estonia the trendsetter?
>
> http://tom.riik.ee
>
> It's in Estonian, but Andy Carvin writes, "they've launched a website,
> http://tom.riik.ee, called I Decide Today. The site allows the public to
> file official requests for new policies or legislation. If their
> recommendation gets rejected, the government is required to give a
> formal explanation why they made that decision. For example, Estonia
> never had daylight savings time, because it is so far north. But the
> public proposed it for a variety of reasons and it was adopted."

When I was in Estonia the former PM noted that "we didn't really know what we
were doing (in 1998), we just did it." Ministries are not required to reply to
adopted petitions (think deliberative petitions where people make proposals,
others can amend, then they vote/sign the final version that is then presented
to government) even though this is hosted on a government site. Something like
15% have been replied to officially.

In recent years Estonia received EU funding (the only government body funding
major e-democracy experiments/pilots) to create an open source version:

http://tidplus.net/ (no code yet, no idea what they wrote it in)

Folks involved with that project are members of the online consultation group:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/consult
Where you might ask them questions. They hosted a webinar:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/consult/messages/topic/2PrGI8VixGmtWrlW9Dn5he

I really do wish these types of tools were being designed as plug-in/modules to
open source CMS systems "with legs" and not just as stand alone tools that are
unlikely to foster development communities.

Another area in Estonia worth exploring is their E-Cabinet system:
http://www.riigikantselei.ee/e_cabinet/
Finland developed a similar system that streamlined their Cabinet
decision-making system (ministers with staff assistance have to flag documents
to discuss prior to meetings rather than spending hours in review as a group).
Estonia added, as I understand it, a public access system to the documents as well.

Steven Clift

[Patrice McDermott]

Thanks, John. It is great that Lieberman found the E-Gov site (which
was originally hosted at G'town). Unfortunately, none of the links are
working. I have sent a note to the administrator. This was, indeed,
an innovative use by Congress -- and they actually paid attention. Of
course, the Admin rewrote the bill and vitiated many of its
provisions.... and then did not even implement what their bill said.

Patrice

On Aug 11, 5:06 pm, "John Wonderlich" <johnwonderl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The next list I'd like to tackle is *legislative participation*.

>
> A number of innovative approaches have appeared in various legislative
> bodies, inviting public participation in what is arguably the most public of
> all processes: the creation of public policy. While these projects vary in
> scope and effect, they all have granted a new level of access and
> authenticity to public deliberation, recognizing the public as a capable
> partner in the process of legislating.
>
> These are all legislative projects operating with official government
> sponsorship. While there is a great deal of valuable work done tracking
> legislation and developing policy outside government, and also pioneering
> work developing in Congress for communicating with constituents, I'm
> focusing here on officially sponsored legislative participation.
>

> - The Open House Project <http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/> launched

> with Speaker Pelosi's endorsement, developing a transparency reform agenda
> for Congress.

> - The Irish House of Parliament, the Oirechtas, held an involved
> "e-consultation"
> project<http://www.econsultation.ie/ec/econswip.nsf/%28webstartpage%29/5?open...>on

> their broadcasting bill. From their site:

> - "The consulters, comprising of members of the Joint Committee of

> Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Office of
> the Houses of
> the Oireachtas e-Consultation Working Group, viewed the
> e-Consultation pilot
> as a significant departure from previous practice as it involved
> a dedicated
> website which allowed for the posting of submissions in a
> structured manner
> as well as a discussion forum and it constituted an attempt to
> communicate
> directly with the public on legislation and not just target traditional
> 'stakeholders'."

> - Rep. Honda posted
> legislation<http://honda.house.gov/legislation/2008/stem.shtml>and

> accepted public commentary on their proposed STEM Act.

> - Rep. Kuhl launched a "Fix
> Washington<http://kuhl.house.gov/blog/index.php/2008/05/16/fix-washington-project/>"

> project, where citizens proposed legislative priorities.

> - Senator Lieberman developed the first E-government
> Act<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/g-4-act.html>of 2002 in
> conjunction with a public
> Web site<http://web.archive.org/web/20010603050357rn_1/www.senate.gov/%7Egov_a...>that

> collected priorities and suggestions. From the accompanying report
> language:

> -

>
> On May 18, 2000, Senators Lieberman and Thompson launched an on-line
> `experiment in interactive legislation', a website that sought public
> comments on 44 topics related to possible measures that Congress
> could take
> to advance the cause of e-government. Topics were organized into
> categories, such as `centralized leadership', `funding innovations', and
> `digital democracy: citizen access and participation,' and ranged from
> `centralized online portal' to `interoperability standards' to `G-Bay':
> enhanced online distribution of federal government surplus property.' For
> each of the topics, a short discussion described the status of current
> efforts and the `New Idea', or ideas, being offered for consideration.
> Visitors to the website could then submit their comments on the
> subject, and
> read views that had been submitted by others. Nearly 1,000 comments were
> submitted, approximately one half of which were posted on the
> website after
> being reviewed by Committee staff.13
>
> [Footnote] Comments were submitted by private citizens, academicians,
> federal employees, and even federal agencies. OMB also responded to the
> website by soliciting views from federal agencies; OMB officials then
> consolidated agencies' responses and presented them to the Committee as a
> single document. Opinions, additional information, and
> alternative proposals
> submitted over the website proved helpful as Senator

> Liebermanformulated his electronic government legislation.

>
> [Footnote] 13Comments were reviewed primarily for appropriateness and
> relevance; Committee staff did not favor any particular viewpoint in
> deciding which submissions to post. The website was intended to
> educate the
> public about the potential of e-government, to solicit input and
> information on the many topics being considered for possible legislation,
> and to serve as both an experiment and an example of how the
> Internet could
> be used to make government processes more accessible to the public.

> - Senator Dick Durbin held public discussions on Open
> Left<http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=318>and
> Redstate<http://archive.redstate.com/stories/policy/what_should_we_include_in_...>,

> asking the question: "What Should We Include in our National Broadband
> Strategy?"

> - Politicopia is a public wiki, set up in conjunction with the Utah State
> Legislature's Rules Committee.
> - I'm looking for any other examples. Others that sort of fit:
> - In a sense, the California initiative
> process<http://www.cainitiative.org/>involves citizen participation,

> although it bypasses more than it augments
> the legislative process.

> - The Peer to Patent Project <http://www.peertopatent.org/> is

> probably the best designed example of substantive public involvement,
> although it isn't legislative.

> - Any other suggestions?

[Micah Sifry]

Estonia is definitely a model, but this paper on its e-govt experience
suggests that design problems and bureaucratic habits have hindered
the usage of its I Decide Today site. The numbers are sobering I
think. http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/politics-web-20-paper-download/Glencross_E_Participation_Estonia_Royal_Holloway.pdf

Micah

--
http://www.personaldemocracy.com
http://www.techpresident.com
http://micah.sifry.com
http://www.twitter.com/mlsif

[John Wonderlich]

I was just pointed to another legislative participation resource, run through the EU:

http://www.eu-participation.eu/

They've split the program into distinct components, most of which will be familiar genres of legislative coordination to those on this list.  A good description of the parts comes in this press release, from February 9th, 2007:

For further information on the projects please go to www.eu-participation.eu or contact the individual projects below:

DALOS: Looking to empower legal drafters and decision-makers with control over multilingual complexity in legislation, thus improving coherence and alignment of legislative languages in the EU as well as improving transposition of EU legislation into national law.

LEGESE: Builds on citizen's involvement in democratic process at the local and regional implementation level of EU legislation. Based on the improved accessibility through a specific content rich democratic meeting webcasting facility linked increased citizen interaction and engagement facilities.
Contact: Dr.John O'Flaherty j.ofl...@mac.ie . Project website:  www.legese.org/

LEXIPATION: Will enable the conduct of moderated online discussion on legislative proposals aiming at timely, informed and responsible judgment of interested stakeholders, through visualization of arguments and impacts of proposed of legislation.
Contact: Dr. Francesco Molinari fm...@altec.gr. Project website:  www.lexipation.eu/

LEX-IS: Will enable all interested parties in a legislation process to easily locate the necessary information with the use of internet-based retrieval tools and to visualize the arguments, thus facilitating the participation of citizens, businesses and NGOs in the consultation and drafting stages of legislation.

SEAL: Tackling the dynamic environment of legislation in terms of links among different pieces of legislation. Enables the stakeholders involved in legislation drafting to have easy construction of legal drafts and creation of connections from and to existing legal sources. The project improves the cooperation between members of parliaments and legislation drafters, allowing for citizens' participation.

TID+: Will enable citizens to propose, discuss and express views on new legislation initiatives, while allowing decision-makers to deliver a response to them, this project will adapt and make available this service in a cross-border environment.