Does Interacting with Elected Officials and Bureaucrats Matter?

Disillusioned citizens: Had some interesting reaction to my recent city council blog post about a controversial action in Lakewood. Basically, state government is throwing Lakewood under the bus - or in this case, under the train - to reroute trains through town for benefit of Seattle to Portland commuters to shave six minutes off the route.

The pros and cons don't matter in terms of this posting. What matters is the reaction I got from a couple folks about
my blog posting that encourages people to write state and federal officials.

Here are quotes from some of the responses ...

I would appreciate your suggestions as to the most appropriate next step and assistance in preparing a letter format we can use so the message from our neighborhood is consistent and articulating our concerns clearly. We are also concerned that we are careful not to undercut the efforts being made by City staff to force change upon the State DOT.

So far only one neighbor has expressed doubt about our opposition and he said it is useless and unwise to oppose the state. Yes, I did point out that we had a revolution to establish our right to oppose government heavy-handedness, however, he seems not to think it relevant (must be a tory!!!).

I am so disturbed by this news, that I am physically ill. The future looks bleak for us in the Nyanza area. I have written to every single person Walter Neary suggested on his webpage. Will it really matter?

Notice the ideas running through here.

There's a concern about whether a citizen writing a letter could somehow interfere with what government is doing.

There's a concern that it is useless and unwise to oppose a government.

There's a concern that corresponding with officials may not matter.

I've spoken to many people who've been even more direct; they don't see the point of commenting to government.

To me, there's a huge tension between these real citizens and all the "stuff" I see floating around the Internet: breathless Twitternouncements with the hashtag #gov20 and references to stuff like open source data and Drupal. Heck - we need to get citizens thinking their participation even matters. Can the Government 2.0 movement do that? Or all we all running around Tweeting, Facebooking and generating meetings and workshops for our own amusement?

The real question is whether our use of these tools will rebuild credibility with citizens. That's the real challenge and the real goal.

Photo credit: Peter Halen and The Tacoma News Tribune.

Writing the Night Before About The Morning After: My Advice to Newly Elected Officials

It's a few hours from when the polls close in Washington State. Around the country in different time zones, people are being elected to local and state office. The official declaration of who wins and loses will come in future days, but in a lot of cases, it's pretty clear or will be clear from the vote tonight who will serve in office.

So ... If you are one of those who gets elected tonight, congratulations. Elected office is a wonderful adventure. It's a call to make a difference. You will now have a real vote to make that difference.

Here's something you probably already know but can now experience: People are going to look at what you say and write and do in a new way. It's going to be odd. Even some of the people you've known for awhile will treat you differently. That's because you're now a politician. Being with a "politician" pushes buttons on some people, regardless of who the politician is. When I first started blogging as a city council member, I had the voice of the journalist that I had been. The actually really upset some people, and it took me way too long to figure that out. You're a political leader now. You have to act like one.

Whatever your background, the tools that helped you get elected now become tools that suddenly develop a much sharper edge.

Many of these new elected officials have used Twitter, Facebook, and other Internet tools to talk with voters and others, and thus, to help get elected. Obviously that's good. We communicate more fluently and broadly than our ancestors could have dreamed of. Communication is the fuel of democracy.

What I worry about is, so where do these new elected-officials-to-be wake up tomorrow and turn to for advice? I hope that if you are one of them, you will wake up and know you now need advice. These communications tools are new, and what you can or cannot do as a political leader with these tools is still being decided in courts around the country.

In other words, when those election numbers came up, your world changed. I have two pieces of advice then. Here is one piece of advice: Don't write anything on Facebook or a similar place that you wouldn't want to see in print in the morning paper or read aloud to you at a local restaurant. I don't care if you only have three friends on Facebook. Doesn't matter. You write something juicy, it's going to be known: if not now, then later.

Be aware of that. Please, don't be someone who puts something jarring on Facebook or Twitter and then claims to be surprised anyone noticed. You make us all look silly.

Your voice suddenly quadrupled in volume; whether you want it or not, you now wear a megaphone. You are now in the public spotlight. Enjoy it. You wanted this job. Step up. The spotlight can be bright, sometimes blinding, but it's part of the role.

Second piece of advice, by far the more serious: Don't break the law inadvertently by using communication tools the wrong way. I can think of one city council member who may or may not get re-elected tonight who helped to cost her city a fortune in legal damages because she was accused of participating in secret meetings even before taking the oath of office. There are many other examples of people who meant well but cost their city big money, and, more importantly, broke the law.

Don't break the law and inadvertently hold a secret meeting. It is very easy for someone who gets elected to keep doing what they have been: using Twitter, Facebook, and email to communicate with others. And you should. These tools are amazing. Just be aware that if you start or continue communicating with other future or current elected officials, you run a big risk of breaking the law. I can't say if that's true everywhere, but it is true in Washington state. You are responsible for knowing the rules where you are.

If you did just get elected in Washington state, and for considerations on how you conduct yourself now, I recommend reading the "Don't Hold a Meeting" section in the Washington state wiki that some of us put together: http://citycouncilbloghandbook.wikispaces.com/Legal+Issues+and+Guidance

If you currently use social media or other Internet tools to talk to a lot of other elected officials, then it would be very, very smart to read this post with guidance from the Washington State Attorney General.

So that's the advice for the morning after.

Oh ... and have fun. This job does not last forever, nor should it. You've got the spotlight and a share of the podium for a limited time. Enjoy and make use of it while you can.

The power and potential to inform about budgets

'Tis the season for budget hearings in local governments across our land. Budgets are not particularly sexy. But budgets are important for the conduct of local government. Budgets are where local governments enshrine priorities by encasing priorities in specific allocations of cold, hard cash. The city council bloggers around the country who write about budgets have been doing a great job educating people. As you might expect, there are lots of different approaches.

Douglas Athas of Garland, Texas, tells people just how much in debt their government is on their behalf. He's got a real gift among us council bloggers for his use of graphics to explain things. I don't know issues in his town, but in Lakewood, Wash., if 45 percent of our budget went to pay debt the voters woulda strung us up by now.

Matthew Petty of Fayetteville, Ark., finds himself in dialogue not only on his blog but on Facebook and the papers over the 'T word:' Taxes.

Seattle's Tim Burgess directs people to video.

Alderman Garry Schroeder of LaSalle, Ill., gives some heck to the local newspapers and his peers on the council, but more importantly, says he's setting the record straight on a proposal.

And in what I thought was the funniest post, playing with references to clairvoyance, Dallas' Angela Hunt talks about what happened after the previous budget was passed and what collisions may be expected this year. She also has some budget town hall video on her blog, which combines very well with the printed material including a third element, Excel spreadsheets of her own design. Impressive.

As I read or skim all these items, I think: how did all these things get said and distributed *before* all the digital tools we have today on the Internet? Just looking over our partial compilation of the city council members who blog can get you excited about the growing potential of digital democracy.

Photo credit: And thanks to East Carolina U for a great mood photo of money!

Washington Considers Creating an Agency to enforce Open Meetings and Records Laws

The Washington state auditor, Brian Sonntag, and attorney general, Rob McKenna, have set up an open government task force to get at one of the big problems with Washington state open public meetings and records laws. Right now, the only way you can enforce them is to go to court.

A slew of references about current issues, controversies and potential solutions for issues about open government can be found at the attorney general's website.

Clearly, what a lot of members of the group seem to be moving toward is formation of an agency that enforces public records laws and open meetings laws. The idea is that there has to be something better than the current system. If I am unhappy with an agency's response in Washington, I have pretty much one choice: sue. And that means hiring a lawyer, dealing with courts, and delay. That's expensive and slow, as a famous case out of King County shows.

If the idea of an agency doing this sounds strange, it's actually not a new idea at all. The committee that met yesterday morning in Olympia got on the phone with the chief enforcement officer of Pennsylvania's open government laws, Terry Mutchler. She says that the agency has the power to command governments to follow the law and give citizens what they want. That certainly sounds appealing. And they also have credibility when they have to explain to citizens that certain records may not be available under the law. More information about what they are doing in Pennsylvania is available here.

The direct link to the Penn agency is here. Take a look. It's impressive.

Here's the handbook and guide for citizens

Here's something that anyone would find useful: A list of what requests have been approved, or not.

And here's something that at least *ought* to prevent lawsuits: informal mediation between the requestor and the agency.

The committee also discussed something that most of us never expected to come out of the public records act. There is a small, but significant group of people who file bizarrely huge numbers of records act requests that cities have to respond to. In Lakewood, we have one fellow who we figure costs us $40,000 a year in staff time. Ms. Mutchler of Pennsylvania said nearly every government she knows of has one of these folks.

It would only inflame these folks if I speculate on why they do it, and the reasons vary. Let's just say that even advocates for open government who were at the table in Olympia generally agree that this is a problem and, to an extent, real squandering of public resources. This problem is much trickier to solve, because citizens do have a right to inquire of their government.

And finally, for another view: A guy I used to work with who thankfully is still at The Olympian, Brad Shannon, wrote a news story about the meeting.

The committee will meet again in November to recommend something, presumably, to the Legislature. I'll post an update then.

Hope it helps digital democracy

Can't wait to see how this is applied to local government websites. Power to the people.

in reference to: Google Sidewiki (view on Google Sidewiki)

Useful Legal Advice about Twitter, Facebook and Blogs

Washington attorney Ramsey Ramerman, who has been mentioned here before, has a very useful column in the current issue of the Association of Washington Cities magazine. I'd call this required reading for anyone dipping into, or currently immersed in, the waters of social media. If you know someone who is a candidate for office, be sure to give this to the person because they would not normally get the magazine. Both Ramsey and the AWC are to be commended for compiling and presenting this material.

You might find it easier to click on the link below, which should open the document at its source so you can move it around and read it.

Government and Social Media: The Legal Issues to Consider

View more documents from Walter Neary.

Among the highlights:

- Don't post anything you don't expect to see in the local paper or blogs. This stuff we Tweet, post or 'Facebook' is public regardless of who you think might see it.

- If your site allows comments, don't moderate them. You could violate the First Amendment.

- Be extremely careful so council members don't start deliberating via social media. That breaks the law.

- There are court cases going on now concerning what material you have to archive from all this social media to comply with public records rules. Be aware of the latest rules and guidelines, and act smart so you don't get fined for failing to produce something (and there's a link from his article to the blog of Ramsey's former law firm to get the latest news)

And that brings up a personal note. Ramsey developed his interests as a private attorney and has recently become assistant city attorney in Everett. That's great for him and Everett, but it means he will have a lot more on his plate than social media. We can only hope the officials there can give him some time to take advantage of his knowledge of social media. Government attorneys need to provide more of this sort of advice, and Everett is to be commended for the time they've already given Ramerman.

A Soundtrack for the Collective Sound of Democracy: Crunching

Mostly during vacation, I shut down thinking about digital democracy. But not all the time. What I heard during vacation was the soundtrack of digital democracy: full citizen participation and steady progress.

And this soundtrack, like those recordings you hear of whales or dolphins in the water, comes from nature.

This is where we find out who has been snorkeling and who hasn't. I snorkeled for the first time only about a year ago. I was mystified not by something I saw, but something I heard.

In some areas, you dip your head into the water, and you hear ... crunching.

The water conveys sound broadly and disperses soundly widely. So when you hear something under water, it can be difficult to pinpoint a location. What I heard during that first time snorkeling was crunching, coming from everywhere.

Turns out it was. This is the sound of creatures like the parrotfish (and assorted critters like them, but let's pick on the parrotfish for simplicity). What the parrotfish does is pretty amazing. He or she wanders the bottom, and bites coral and rock. He or she extracts the living matter, and then gets rid of the crunched material.

That makes what we call sand. One parrotfish, with his or her tiny mouthfuls, makes hundreds of pounds of sand a year.

Now that's an accomplishment.

So what's this got to do with democracy? Suppose for a moment that the conduct of public policy is as important as eating. Maybe it's not that important, but just suppose. People have to get along somehow. So do fish. Notice how the fish approach the Herculean task of eating and generating sand.

You will notice that the fish in a cove do not sit back and elect seven other fish to do the chewing for them.

They don't elect a city council of fish to go out and do the chewing and be responsible for handing out the food.

The fish in the cove also don't sit back and let a few other fish activists do all the work.

Nope. The cove reverberates with the sound of hundreds or thousands of fish, all chewing.

That's what digital democracy on the Internet should be. It shouldn't be blips of posts and dialogue from council members, from staff, from just a few individual citizens who happen to know how to Tweet or post. There should be a way, someday, for a digital dashboard to light up, or sound off, to measure massive citizen participation: Not just the participation of a few.

And that's the trick for Gov 2.0 and digital democracy. What forms of hardware, software and public practices will take us to a digital democracy as participatory as that of the conduct of the parrot fish? Can't we rise to their standard?

Photo credit: Count on National Geographic to tell us about nature ... and the parrotfish.