Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/hold me in your arms/Jim Warren/GA#8;-Using-the-net-for-effect

Text File | 1994-10-22 | 16KB | 286 lines

GovAccess#8: Using the net for effective political action [HOW TO]

Jan. 31, 1994

A number of people have said they found this column in BoardWatch valuable,
so ... FYI.
--jim
Jim Warren, columnist for MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc.
345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814
**To join or drop from the gov-access list, email to [e-mail].**

  >>Permission herewith granted for unlimited reposting and recirculation.<<


I write a monthly government-access column for BoardWatch, the magazine
for bulletin-board-system sysops and BBS users (8500 W. Bowles Av #210,
Littleton CO 80123; 800-933-6038; [e-mail]).
  This was my December, 1993, column.  It uses AB1624 as an example of how
the computer nets can be used for effective political action -- uh, when
the cause is "just", i.e., would have widespread public support.  Nicely,
it is totally useless for sleezy legislation benefitting only unworthy
special interests -- those must still be bought in backroom deals.  This
mechanism *can*, however, be used to *oppose* sleezy deals.  :-)  --Jim W.


For typographic conversions:This is ASCII-only
    2-space sentence-starts  2-space paragraph indents
/i/  = begin italic   \i\  = end italic        --   = n-dash
/b/  = begin bold     \b\  = end bold          ---  = m-dash
/*/  = bullet
dumb quote-marks:     `` = left-quote        '' = right-quotedumb
single-quotes:         ` = left-apostrophe    ' = right-aspostrophe

--------------------ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT--------------------

CALIFORNIA'S NEW LEGISLATIVE ACCESSPROVIDES MODEL FOR OTHER STATES
by Jim Warren (c) 1993  This may be copied-in-full by anyone, anywhere,
at any time, in any form, provided no fee is charged for the specific copy.



  California's Assembly Bill 1624 (by Bowen, D-Marina del Rey) provides
comprehensive online public access via the public nets to information
about legislation-in-process and to already-enacted state statutes,
without charge by the state, all mandated by law.  On Oct. 11th, the
last night California's Governor could act on AB1624, he signed the
bill.
  Like most new laws, it takes effect Jan. 1st -- and there is reason to
believe that public electronic access will actually be possible within a
week or two of that date, perhaps even within a day or two.

YOU CAN DO IT
  This kind of public-access legislation can be implemented in any
state.
  Almost /i/anyone\i\ can do it.  Here's how (which works equally well
for any legislative effort that would enjoy public support):
  1.  Find one or several legislators willing to author the bill.  The
most likely candidates are those who have authored successful public-
records and open-government legislation in the past.  Call your
legislative representatives' offices and ask; they're easy to locate.
  Your authors should be members of the majority party in your
legislature.  Reality note:  Legislation by minority-party members is
much more difficult to get passed and much more likely to be gutted
during partisan turf tiffs.
  It is essential that the author have an aide -- preferably a senior
aide -- who is interested in such public-access legislation and is
willing to take on the burden of shepherding the bill, with his or her
boss's approval.  Reality note:  Expect almost no contact with, nor
significant assistance from, the legislators; depend on the staffer.
The authors' functions are to protect the bill and round up the votes
for it.  Beyond that, they're swamped.
  If possible, the authors should be senior legislators, ideally members
of Rules or Budget committees.  Reality note:  When Rules and Budget
majority-party members want something, they generally get it.
  2.  As soon as possible -- even before finding the author(s) -- begin
building an online and off-line coalition of supporters.  Individuals,
community leaders, reputable nonpartisan public-sector and private-
sector organizations and reporters, editors and radio talk-show hosts.
  Set up an email distribution-list for those who are online.
  For those who still suffer the antiquity of being electronically
disconnected, set up at least a snailmailing list, plus a telephone tree
for key contacts -- especially major media contacts.
  Keep your bill-authors or prospective authors updated on the size and
reputability of the list -- through your staff contact.  Body-counts of
potential voters is the ultimate political lever; flaunt it (without
inflating numbers); use it!
  3.  Keep in close contact with the staffer who is shepherding the
bill.  They will know who its supporters and opponents are -- targets
for praise, or for vigorous public pressure.  They will know what
issues, concerns and complications are on the horizon.  Most
importantly, they will know when hearings will occur and what
legislators need to receive public input -- and when -- including those
legislators' key staffers, fax numbers, etc.
  4.  Monitor the wording of the original bill and each of its
amendments like a hawk.  The staffers who will draft the language are
very knowledgeable of legislative and legal requirements but are almost
invariably technologically naive and/or illiterate (as much so as most
of us are about their areas of legislative expertise).
  Don't hesitate to suggest -- or urge! -- language changes as soon as
you notice any imperfection or possible misinterpretation or vagueness
in an amendment.  The sooner; the better -- preferably while the
amendment is still in an informal, draft stage.  If you develop a good
working relationship and trust with the staffer, you will often have
access to such drafts.
  5.  As hearings and votes approach, issue fast, accurate online,
snailmailed and telephone updates and ``action alerts.''  (Bowen and her
staff have said that AB1624 simply would not have passed without the
public pressure that flooded in before each hearing and vote -- which
was almost entirely prompted by online alerts I issued, that many dozens
of fellow supporters cascaded across the nets, plus some crucial phone
trees by some public-access advocacy organizations.)
  6.  Don't let up.  Don't take vacations.  Many a bill has suddenly
been sunk when the leadership of its support relaxed during what
appeared to be a lull.
  Also:  Focus only on the one bill, no matter how zealously you believe
in other ``righteous'' legislation.  Reality note:  Attempting to
promote multiple political agendas at the same time will fragment your
attention and energy.  Much worse, it will often generate suspicion and
distrust of all of your efforts, and endangers and fragments the support
you can organize for any of them.

LOBBYING THE LEGISLATURE
  When you begin promoting legislation -- even public-interest
legislation -- by your legislative activism, you become a <gasp!>
lobbyist.
  Don't involve your employer or company -- often classified as a
reportable political contribution-in-kind.
  Expect legislators to be almost totally ignorant of the issues, the
potentials of online access and certainly of the technology.  Expect
almost all of them to occasionally /i/sound\i\ supportive but usually be
totally uninterested in the bill.
  Expect them to be highly suspicious of your motives.  Reality note:
They are so inundated with hustlers wanting legislation that is
personally beneficial, that the notion of activists actually wanting
something merely for the public good is typically greeted with beady-
eyed suspicion.
  And the notion that programmers would volunteer to assist with
implementation pro bono, without getting something in return, is
typically rejected as being simply unbelievable.

FOR THE CYNICAL CITIZEN
  I say this from personal experience as a longtime activist and
sometime political irritant:
  Contrary to popular (cynical) belief, most elected officials --
federal, state and local -- are quite willing to have most of their
proposed statutes and ordinances publicly disclosed.  (Appointed and
career bureaucrats, as opposed to elected officials, too-often practice
the opposite viewpoint.)
  Most elected officials feel that most legislation they author is
``good,'' and would be supported by the public -- if the public only
knew about it.  (Admittedly, they sometimes have to talk to themselves a
lot in order to convince themselves how ``good'' some of their special-
interest legislation really is -- but they're good talkers.)
  Most also believe that ``bad'' legislation -- always authored by
someone else, of course -- would be defeated, if only the public knew
its details and ramifications.
  And the /i/vast\i\ majority of government officials feel that they and
the policies in which they are interested don't get nearly the publicity
and public exposure they should have -- from sound-bite newscasters and
all-the-news-that-fits newspapers.

THE CALIFORNIA MODEL, VERBATIM
  If you're gonna pursue such ventures, you may as well try reading some
legislation -- and have a model to work from.  Though a bit tedious, it
is actually reasonably intelligible.
  This is AB1624 as it was signed into law [bracketed notes are mine]:
  [First, the non-functional principles.]
`` SECTION 1.  The Legislature finds and declares that it is now
possible and feasible in this electronic age to more widely distribute
legislative information by way of electronic communication in order to
better inform the public of the matters pending before the Legislature
and its proceedings.  The Legislature further finds that it is desirable
to make information regarding these matters and proceedings available to
the citizens of this state, irrespective of where they reside, in a
timely manner and for the least possible cost.''
  [Now, the enforceable, operational specifics.]
`` SEC. 2.  Section 10248 is added to the Government Code, to read:
  ``10248. (a) The Legislative Counsel [who operates the Legislative
Data Center] shall, with the advice of the Assembly Committee on Rules
and the Senate Committee on Rules, make all of the following information
available to the public in electronic form:
  ``  (1) The legislative calendar, the schedule of legislative
committee hearings, a list of matters pending on the floors of both
houses of the Legislature, and a list of the committees of the
Legislature and their members.
  ``  (2) The text of each bill introduced in each current legislative
session, including each amended, enrolled [passed by the Legislature]
and chaptered [signed or otherwise passed into law] form of each bill.
  ``  (3) The bill history [hearings, votes, etc.] of each bill
introduced and amended in each current legislative session [in
California, a session is two years; some bills are completed in one
year, like AB1624; others are ``two-year bills''].
  ``  (4) The bill status [remaining committee hearings, etc.] of each
bill introduced and amended in each current legislative session [about
5,000 bills are introduced in a two-year California legislative
session].
  ``  (5) All bill analyses prepared by legislative committees in
connection with each bill in each current legislative session. [Partisan
analyses by party caucuses are sometimes more important, but are
apparently /i/not\i\ included in AB1624.  Try to get them included.]
  ``  (6) All vote information concerning each bill in each current
legislative session.
  ``  (7) Any veto message concerning a bill in each current legislative
session [if a Governor vetoes a bill, he or she usually explains why --
or gives excuses, depending on your viewpoint].
  ``  (8) The California Codes. [the stateUs laws or statutes;
previously sold on magtape for over $200,000 per copy]
  ``  (9) The California Constitution [which includes enacted ballot
initiatives, which helps make it a /i/bizarre\i\ document!]
  ``  (10) All statutes enacted on or after January 1, 1993 [this is
essentially redundant with (8), but assures continuing updates of the
codes].
  ``(b) The information identified in subdivision (a) shall be made
available to the public by means of access by way of the largest
nonproprietary, nonprofit cooperative public computer network [i.e., via
the Internet, which in turn is gatewayed to Fidonet, Delphi, GEnie,
America Online, CompuServe, etc. -- when I suggested this phrasing, I
assumed it was best to be generic, rather than show Internet brandname
loyalty and risk giving legislators something to pick at].
  ``  The information shall be made available in one or more formats and
by one or more means in order to provide the greatest feasible access to
the general public in this state.
  ``  Any person who accesses the information may access all or any part
of the information.
  ``  The information may also be made available by any other means of
access that would facilitate public access to the information. [Although
I suspect it wasn't intended, this clearly authorizes independent BBS
and computer-host operators to systematically copy all information,
continuously update their files, and offer access and value-added
options, limited only by their imagination!]
  ``  The information that is maintained in the legislative information
system that is operated and maintained by the Legislative Counsel shall
be made available in the shortest feasible time after the information is
available in the information system [the LegislatureUs $25-million
internal system used by staff throughout the Capitol and in legislatorsU
district offices.  This, it turns out, is a potential problem.  It seems
that the legislators' own internal information system is sometimes days
or even a week or more behind.  In a previous version of the bill, I had
gotten language included that specified a time limit for public
availability based on when the electronic copies were sent to the Office
of State Printing for overnight printing of the paper bills.  But the
Legislative Counsel managed to slickly skewer that language by behind-
the-scenes manipulation in the Senate.].
  ``  The information that is not maintained in the information system
shall be made available in the shortest feasible time after it is
available to the Legislative Counsel. [This is sometimes a major problem
regarding the crucial analyses of bills and their impacts.]
  ``(c) Any documentation that describes the electronic digital formats
of the information identified in subdivision (a) and is available to the
public shall be made available by means of access by way of the computer
network specified in subdivision (b).
  ``(d) Personal information concerning a person who accesses the
information may be maintained only for the purpose of providing service
to that person.
  ``(e) /b/No fee or other charge may be imposed by the Legislative
Counsel as a condition of accessing the information\b\ that is
accessible by way of the computer network specified in subdivision (b).
[boldface added]
  ``(f) The electronic public access provided by way of the computer
network specified in subdivision (b) shall be in addition to other
electronic or print distribution of the information [to state the
obvious].
  ``(g) No action taken pursuant to this section shall be deemed to
alter or relinquish any copyright or other proprietary interest or
entitlement of the State of California relating to any of the
information made available pursuant to this section.'' [Some Sacramento
powerhogs actually propose that records about legislation-in-process
might be public, but are nonetheless the exclusive property of the
Legislature!]



JIM'S ``SELF-INFLATING PUFF-PIECE''
  Jim Warren [345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; [phone];
Internet/[e-mail]] has been a computer writer, lecturer and
organizer for more than 20 years.
  He founded /i/InfoWorld\i\, the Computers, Freedom & Privacy
conferences, the huge Computer Faires of the `70s, was founding host of
PBS' ``Computer Chronicles'' and founding Editor of /i/Dr. Dobb's
Journal\i\.
  He began working as a minicomputer programmer in 1968, holds three
graduate degrees and has taught computing at Stanford and other
universities.