This week I wanted to consider how citizens interact and participate with the Arizona State Legislature, both in how technology could be used and an idea for a new government communication tool. Currently there are different points of access for the public. The first and most traditional is contact information of the legislators. In this context it is important to remember that the characteristics of contact mediums shape the kinds of conversations that can be developed. Contact information is essential for being able to schedule a meeting with a representative or senator, but the communication is very limited in this medium, especially since the initial contact is with administrative assistants. The implied power suggests that the legislator is the dominant power as he or she can accept or reject appointment requests.
Another feature is ALIS http://www.azleg.gov, a tool on the legislature website that provides the language of proposed and approved bills. This serves a reference role, where public access to information is improved when displayed on the web. This resource can improve discussions on relevant issues, but is not a medium for government communication. It should be noted that there is a difference in government transparency of providing information and providing information that is easily navigable by the public. For example, to access bill language from previous years, the user must change the session- this was confusing as a first time user and can lead to difficulties if individuals do not remember the session in which a bill was presented.
A third communication path with the legislature is the ability to speak on proposed legislation. Citizens can sign in on modules and stand in support or opposition to a bill and can request to speak. An initial profile must be created at a kiosk at the state capitol, but once a profile has been created, individuals can sign in remotely to voice opinions. This power structure can be considered more direct, since citizen opinions are being presented when bills are in development and revision, but there is still a disconnect between the individual opinion and the representative. Additionally, during my time as a page at the House it appeared that individuals associated with an organization were given more attention than members of the public unless that individual was influential.
Given these available means of communication, I think it may be helpful to create a website allowing for direct expression of citizen opinions to government and peers and accessible resources for the public. I will do my best to describe what I visualize. A brief description of proposed legislation, organized by theme for searching ease, could be provided with a link to the bill page on ALIS. The structure of the site can be a spoke and wheel design; I included an example that was may work as a reference for different idea templates (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.loaddd.com/vdo/uploads/picture2/338.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.loaddd.com/download.php%3Fid%3D338&usg=__CmBBPXq-Ki4uj2UQQyC2tIBhqpE=&h=376&w=500&sz=40&hl=en&start=61&zoom=1&tbnid=Ak-DomPhh4dkiM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dedraw%2Btrial%2Bversion%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7DMUS_en%26biw%3D1003%26bih%3D521%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C1797&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=718&vpy=168&dur=1078&hovh=195&hovw=259&tx=170&ty=87&ei=UfDFTM69GYTQ).
Summary reports of deliberations and key issues could be included for background (there must be a value neutral emphasis in this section to be successful). People would have the opportunity to sign in once for each bill revision; for example, if a bill was proposed and amended one time, a citizen would be able to comment two times. Maps of opinions could be bundled by legislative district. A tool could be used that would allow legislators or the public look at opinions or questions that people in districts are thinking about. Legislators could pose questions on the site for input. Another feature could incorporate the online game networking to come up with new ideas to solve problems. McGonigal (2010) noted how a few online games she designed led to innovative solutions created through supportive networking. Ideas that have merit could be used as a framework for new legislation. If this application was successful, there could be a new relationship of constructive discussion and problem solving. The site could be a reliable source of citizen opinion feedback and could help representatives understand different issues brought up by constituencies. Shirky (2010) likewise discussed how using software can be used so the institution becomes, “an enabler rather than an obstacle”. The web can be seen as an opportunity as well as a tool to utilize the resources and knowledge of the public, which in turn can improve government projects and public service.
No comments:
Post a Comment