Earlier this year, David All and I wrote a section of the Open House Project calling for the House to review and rewrite arcane franking regulations as applied to member Web sites. According to Roll Call, it looks like this is actually going to happen. If you’ve ever been to a congressional Web site you’ve probably noticed the lack of interactivity, multimedia, and linking that is common in today’s Internet. That’s because of unwritten, nonspecific, arbitrary rules that are unevenly applied across member Web sites. Members can’t post YouTube videos, link to MySpace, ask people to Digg something on their site, or have a blogroll. All of that may be changing soon:

Regulations prohibit content that can be construed as an advertisement or as purely personal information, such as links to fundraisers or support for partisan causes. Now, the new phenomenon of social networking sites — and the increasing use of them by Members — is testing the application of such rules in a multimedia world.

House and Senate officials say several Members are not in compliance, though none apparently have been disciplined. It’s time, they say, to update the rules to match the technology.

The House Administration Committee has been drafting possible changes for months, as has the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.

“The Internet increasingly has become a more effective means of communication,” said Salley Collins, spokeswoman for House Administration ranking member Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.).

“Technology is continually evolving. Therefore, the rules themselves need to evolve so Members can utilize technology to the fullest,” Collins added.

Turning official member Web sites into actual interactive portals to engage constituents and talk to the member’s office is the next wave in change in the member-constituent relationship. Member Web sites have made leaps and bounds this year alone as hubs of information and they beginning in integrate interactive elements and break the boundaries of these now irrelevant rules. Here are a few numbers concerning what’s going on on member Web sites:

At least 44 members have blogs, 30 of which have been updated in the last month. Three of them have blog rolls.

At least 7 members use YouTube for the videos on their Web site. At least 8 members use Google Maps on their Web site.

And a few other members link to other sites like Flickr, Facebook, MySpace, Eventful, and iCal.

All of these tool should be approved for use. Member Web sites should also get rid of the ridiculous requirement to have a jump page if they link to a non-governmental Web site. People have been on the Web in large numbers for over a decade now. It is common sense that a link may take you to another Web site. We don’t need to be warned.

I eagerly anticipate the release of new rules so that members can finally engage with their constituents through their Web sites.

0 Comments

As David All and I have written, the rules governing member Web sites are not fit for the 21st Century Web. If the rules were enforced with any regularity, instead of used as a scarecrow to keep members from innovating, then some of the best practices by members on the Web wouldn't be happening. Case in point: Rep. George Miller (D-CA).

Today, George Miller announced a new campaign, called "Ask George," calling on citizens to send videos, through video sharing sites like YouTube, to Miller's office regarding the War in Iraq. Miller's office describes "Ask George" as a "distributed, virtual town hall". Miller also suggests that participants in this conversation "tag" their videos "askgeorge" so that his office can go and find the questions. This way, Miller is the one going out to seek the conversation rather than the citizen or constituent who is usually the one seeking out the congressman.

This is exactly the type of activity that allows members to communicate more effectively with their constituents, and Americans in general, about the issues that matter. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) asks people to send YouTubed questions for him to answer, to which he responds in kind. Miller's use of YouTube to engage in a conversation with citizens goes a step further though. He has worked with Splash Cast to create a Facebook application for the "Ask George" campaign and will be hosting an "Ask George" Facebook page for citizens to discuss with the congressman, and amongst each other, the War in Iraq.

This is by all accounts the first time that a member of Congress, in their official capacity, has gone to a social networking site to connect with citizens. The innovative use of social networking and video sharing sites by Miller's office is astounding considering the restrictions that members are told they have to abide by. It's time for more members of Congress to start communicating and connecting to people online as George Miller is. The barriers created by congressional Web use rules will cease to exist if members and their staff simply ignore them.

George Miller is one member of Congress leading the way in using Web 2.0 technologies to connect with constituents and citizens. This only enhances his ability to do his job. It's time for more members to lead with him.

0 Comments

The Hill newspaper ran an Op-Ed written by David All and myself on Tuesday in the Open House Project Op-Ed series. We run down the reasons why member Web sites are often just polished brochures, accessories to the actual functions of the office. First and foremost is the rule regime governing member Web content. These rules date from the early to mid-nineties and do not reflect the current nature of the Internet in the 21st Century. David and I advocate for these rules to be changed and for the Committee on House Administration to create a bipartisan panel to solve the problem. I've been blogging about member Web sites over at the Open House Project blog this week. So far, I've covered Ben Nelson's Google Map of his Iraq CODEL, Jack Kingston's dynamic member site, and the attitude on Capitol Hill in regards to member Web sites. Below the fold I've included the Op-Ed that David and I wrote.

Modern world, ancient websites

by David All and Paul Blumenthal

June 19, 2007

Technology and politics are rapidly intertwining in the new millennium as presidential candidates adopt sophisticated online operations to raise money, get out the vote and connect to new voters. Social networking, blogging and online video technologies have taken the political world by storm. But in Washington, members of Congress are forced to watch this race for online superiority from the sidelines.

It’s not their fault. While candidates for office can do as they please with their websites, members of Congress are heavily restricted in the kinds of activities they can partake in on their official websites, because they are governed by Franking Rules. These rules were created decades ago to restrict the use of mass mailings sent to congressional districts at taxpayer expense. Franking Rules, modified to apply to the Web in 1994 and last updated in 1996, state that members may not use non-congressionally provided services for their website, nor link to any site of a personal or political nature.

Due to such restrictions, most member websites function as little more than online brochures, when they could better serve as a place to share information about the member’s activities in Congress, or even as a vital community center. Under these rules, members cannot use Google maps to provide visuals for district information important to constituents. Neither can members use non-congressionally provided blogging tools, nor link to other blogs that may be deemed to be of a political nature.

Therefore, members of Congress cannot partake in the important conversation happening online, while any citizen can start a blog, contribute to a wiki and generally engage in unfettered online debate.

Congress should recognize that the Internet is a vastly different communications medium than any that lawmakers have used before. The open-source era, known widely for its Web 2.0 programs and websites, allows citizens much greater capacity to control who they talk to, what news they receive and what new portals they might use to better distribute information throughout the entire world. Lawmakers have to be able to participate in the same manner.

The onerous restrictions placed by Franking Rules may lead members of Congress to neglect the greater potential of their websites. According to recent reports by the Sunlight Foundation and the Congressional Management Foundation, most members only present a small part of the information that would be useful for constituents. Too few member websites list bills they sponsor, the earmarks they secure or the votes they cast. Even fewer post members’ daily schedules or the various disclosure forms they are required to file each year. Lifting or at least clearly codifying the restrictions on member websites will make robust public access more easily attainable and will allow members to take full advantage of technology developments to better connect with constituents.

Given the rapid development of online communications, the time has come to re-imagine the world of the wired elected official.

In 1994, a House-appointed special task force created new rules to govern House Web use. These rules may have been appropriate for the Internet of 1994, but they are unacceptable for the open-source era.

The Committee on House Administration should, therefore, convene a bipartisan task force of members of Congress, congressional staff and citizens to better identify the intent of the current rules and regulations that are effectively prohibiting smarter use of congressional websites to communicate with constituents and present information.

0 Comments

The Congressional Management Foundation released their annual Golden Mouse Awards today for the best Member websites. The numbers, like our own “Tools for Transparency” project, are not too encouraging. The average score for our citizen powered project was 31.3755. The most common score for the CMF Golden Mouse Awards was a “D”, which is between 30 and 39.

The CMF study is a shade different from what we, with your help, were doing here at Sunlight. CMF uses the following categories to determine if a website is operated properly:

• Audience - The office has “defined the audience” of the website and this is explicitly clear by the site design and features.

• Content - Up-to-date information.

• Usability - Design provides quick and easy access to information.

• Interactivity - The site “fosters two-way communication”.

• Innovation - Creative features “enhance visitors’ experience”.

CMF also has four “deal-breakers,” or areas where the website must excel to be a good or great website. These are:

• Timeliness - Up-to-date information.

• Usability - The site must be easy to navigate.

• Issue Content - Keep constituents aware of legislative news and the Member’s actions.

• Constituent Casework - Provide information and guidance of casework.

This year there were only 85 Mouse Award winners, chosen from Member, Committee, and Leadership websites. Of Gold Mouse winners 11 were House Member sites, 3 from Senator's sites, three Committee sites, and 1 Leadership site. the Gold Mouse winners for Member pages were: Representatives Brian Baird, Xavier Becerra, Marion Berry, Earl Blumenauer, Mike Honda, John Larson, John Linder, Carolyn Maloney, Jeff Miller, Dennis Moore, Charlie Norwood, and Senators Bill Frist, Pat Leahy, and Rick Santorum. The study has a run-down of why each individual site was selected and how the website excelled in specific categories.

The study also reports an interesting finding, that the highest percentage of "A" and "B" grades came from Members who won reelection in 2006 with between 50% and 55% of the vote. Members who failed to reach 50% of the vote had the highest percentage of "F" grades and Members who won win over 55% had the highest percentage of "D" grades. This cannot be a coincidence. As the study notes, Members who faced difficult reelection challenges and won "understand the consequences of not meeting constituent expectations online." Those who are in marginal districts and face tough reelection challenges often are more aware of the importance of a strong online presence.

Another interesting piece of the study was this chart comparing the features available on House and Senate pages:

You can read the full report here. You can also follow our "Are Congressional Websites Tools for Transparency?" project as well (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

0 Comments

With tenacity and doggedness, citizen journalists have now completed their investigations of the Web sites for some 334 members of Congress–leaving us with just over 200 to go!

The average score has crept up to 31.2679, while the average amount of time taken to complete an investigation holds steady at seven minutes.

Thanks to everyone who’s participated so far (if I’m reading the handy-dandy internal stats page correctly, there are 93 contributors), and thanks also to Kathy Gill, who gives us a nice plug while offering a very useful criticism.

0 Comments

What are you finding in the search for Member page transparency? Give a spin around and you're bound to find something interesting. We all now know about Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand and Sen. Jon Tester posting their daily schedule on the web but we haven’t seen too much from other Members. This post highlights some things Members are doing that you might run across while undertaking our new citizen journalist assignment.

Posting a schedule is an innovative way to provide constituents with more information and provide them with a better feel for what a Member of Congress does. While Gillibrand and Tester are at the forefront of a new kind of schedule transparency they were not the first to post some form of personal schedule online. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) has been posting a schedule on his site for years now, although the schedule does not list more than one thing for each day. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) also posts a schedule on his website that does provide a bit more information than Capuano’s schedule.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) also posts a schedule on her site. Her schedule has to be both the best and one of the worst of all those who post schedules. While Woolsey does not take advantage of it, the tool she is using for her schedule is pretty awesome (for something on a Member website). You can search by meetings, hearings, and district events and there is a visual element to it. Unfortunately, she does not offer up any information regarding what the meetings or hearings were about or who they were with. There’s a lot of potential in Woolsey’s schedule for constituents. If only she’d actually use it.

There are a few other members who post, or pretend to post, a personal schedule to their website. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) is probably the best of these others as he actually puts some information up. Dorgan’s Daily News Brief is not archived unfortunately.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) have pages (Ross’ page and Schiff’s page) masquerading as schedules. These could easily be turned into useful pages for constituents.

Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-NY) uses his website to give an explanation for each of his votes. Each explanation is essentially a press release but it combines two things that constituents want: a vote history for the Member and an explanation of those votes.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (R-NY) is not afraid to tell you the appropriations, or earmarks, that she has won for her district.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) has a pretty great list of all the legislation that he sponsored that provides, with each vote, all the links to the bill text, his statements and press releases, along with other endorsements of each piece of legislation.

And in the spirit of providing more information to the public Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has a list of links to CRS reports on a variety of subjects and bills.

Now, I’ve only looked over a few of these so there are probably a number of interesting ways that Members disclose information through their website. Most, if not all, of these methods need some improvement (a lot of improvement in many cases). But they are a start. What have you found in your search?

0 Comments

We’re launching a new citizen journalism project to find out what members of Congress are doing with their taxpayer-funded, official Web sites. Are they using the sites to further transparency and be accountable to their constituents? Or are they using them to post press releases touting their actions or to highlight favorable stories from the press?

We’re asking you to dig through the official, taxpayer-funded Website of a member of Congress, and help determine those that act as genuine tools for transparency. We’re asking questions in three broad areas: do they provide access to basic information on what they do in Congress (the bills they sponsor, the committees they serve on); do they provide information from or access to any of the legally-required disclosures they have to file (on personal finances or junkets they take), and do they provide any additional information that furthers transparency (their daily schedule, lists of earmarks they’ve asked for or gotten).

Members of Congress provide all sorts of information they want us to know–press releases and favorable stories saying they’re off to a good start or helping to fight cancer or being honored for their work in Congress. Do they also provide access to the kinds of information that allow us, as constituents, to evaluate their work and exercise responsible citizen oversight? How much of their public record do they provide, online, to the public?

We’re asking you to help us determine which members use their Web sites is a tool for transparency. The findings will be used to highlight the best practices, and to develop a set of guidelines for sites of members to meet in the future.

To dig in, click here.

0 Comments