-Strong Internet presence agencies examined: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
-Weak Internet presence agencies examined: The Department of Commerce and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
-Analysis method: Questioned those congressional staff in charge of oversight activities, compared the web page quality based on online features and performance.
-The “Observed effects of enhanced agency websites on casework [leads to] greater citizen use [which in turn leads to] slightly fewer casework requests” (p.562).
-Transforming the data received from agency internets into explanations of how an agency failed to meet objectives sometimes presents a problem.
-“No staff members in any of the four agencies were able to specify an instance in which an agency website was the original, unique source of an oversight topic” (p.563).
-Agency websites tend to provide more information on oversight topics or provide different opinions and critiques rather than creating new oversight topics.
-Websites are noted by congressional staffers as leading to increased amounts of information available for those addressing policies. Also, the availability allowed by agency websites helps to speed the process of information gathering, and “communication among agency, constituents, and staff is smoother and quicker as participants can so easily access material on agency websites” (p.564).
-“More information about agency operations [leads to] more participative and informed debate, more focused hearings, and more briefings and follow-up” (564).
-It appears that information presented on the agency web pages does not lead to micromanagement, but the findings of the interviews seemed to support the trend of “more monitoring of implementation” (p.566) because of the increase in programs information.
-Principal-agent theory: “Agency websites quite clearly reduce costs of time and effort that the principal needs to expend to achieve control over the agent. Our interviews suggest that agency websites advantage interest groups and minority staff more than others, especially more than committees” (p.567).
-As a network together, the agency websites and the information they provide so accessibly to everyone going to the sites helps also to expedite congressional oversight with the superior intelligence networks provided to congressional staffs.
-The staff interviewed conveyed the importance of the agency internets because of the consistency and frequency of visits, as well as, the influence such data has on briefings, communication between departments, and analysis of data.
Davis, Charles N.2005. “Privacy Considerations in Electronic Judicial Record: When Constitutional Rights Collide.” In Handbook of Public Information Systems, ed. David G. Garson. NY: Taylor and Francis.
Chapter 33, “Privacy Considerations in Electronic Judicial Records: When Constitutional Rights Collide” pp.569-579
-While the Supreme Court recognizes a federal common law in support of the release of Judicial records to the public, they also recognize the control each court individually is endowed with.
-Common Law and Constitutional protection under the 1st Amendment
-Right for public to attend criminal trials affirmed, so in essence thisdecision confirms to right for the public to have access to judicial records.
-Challenges to Public Electronic Access to Judicial Records
-Raised new question: “could an agency invoke privacy concerns to deny
access to public records compiled electronically, in large part because
they were compiled electronically?” (p. 571)
-New threats could evolve because of the publicity of judicial records such as the availability of levels of witness involvement to be seen which could put some in danger.
-“Despite the revolutionary ability of the computer, and of the Internet, to make information readily available to the citizenry, “practical obscurity” stands ready to limit its vast potential to democratize information” (p. 573).
-Two categories of information
-“To the Reporters Committee Court information is either about individuals or about government; when the two categories blend, the result, in the Court’s view, should almost always be nondisclosure” (p.573).
-“Developing a Model Written Policy Governing Access to Court Records”
-project led by funding through SJI (State Justice Institute)
-“public is public model”
-1st Amendment guarantees our right to access through whatever means, e-government or not to judicial records, with the means of protecting privacy already in place continuing as adequate measures of security.
-“practical obscurity” school of thought
-argues that rather than the true purpose of judicial records being open, that is for the public to critique the court system, there is a new door opened by e-filing of judicial records, scrutiny of individuals involved in the records.
-The Federal Courts support the openness of civil filings, yet place criminal files under the sphere of the practical obscurity model.
-Created in 1996, the committee conducted research for two years on the release of court records and came to the conclusion that “…privacy interests should neither preclude nor limit the public’s right to access non-confidential information in electronic form” (p. 575)
-“Public is public” model comes out on top after research compiled by the subcommittee.
-Court records should remain open except under exclusions of confidentiality issues, and when exclusions are made, they must be made consistently and across the board giving no special regard to “approved” requesters.
-The guidelines “urge states to consider whether the request is “an appropriate use of public resources” (p. 578).
-Essentially, CCJ/COSCA guidelines allow the states to take their guidelines as recommendations and apply them on their own terms, case-by-case.
-Electronic Early Notification System (ENS)
-Model of Electronic Governance
-“New technology is theorized to improve individual capacity for political participation by lowering the costs of communication and easing access to the information required for political activity” (p.584).
-New technologies also have the ability to catch the attention of the citizen with things that are applicable to their interests, therefore, motivating citizens.
-The accessibility of e-government and the ease of communication which the internet allows for has the ability to mobilize citizens through its venues for organization.
-The range of citizen participation which ENS allowed for caused a devolution in decision-making authority as the neighborhood organizations were formed to address local issues and address the local reaction to larger scale issues.
-In order for participatory reform to take place, goals to include all of the constituency should be addressed such as “promoting an informed citizenry, broadening representation, involving citizens who would otherwise be disenfranchised due to socioeconomic inequalities, and empowering people by creating opportunities to affect government decisions and to self-govern” (p.587).
-When comparing the ENS historically with participatory reforms, we may draw five major lessons:
“1. Vaguely expressed goals and weak sanctions hamper participation reforms, 2. Participatory reforms are not politically neutral, 3. Public administrators often resist participatory programs, 4. Opportunities for participation are exercised differentially, and 5. Benefits from participation are difficult to measure and occur in the longer run” (pgs 588-590).
-The Information Technology Agency (ITA) faced problems with the development of ENS as they were hurt by fiscal constraints and had to take loans to finance the ENS development.
-Because of the different aspects of ENS project, its nature and the availability of technology, there was an “effect of narrowing the focus of ENS development to purely technological issues” (p.591).
-Problems facing the ENS
-developing broad/vague mandates to effective programs
-Vulnerability to implementation barriers
-ENS faces long standing structure of participation
-“In the short run, the informative and communicative advantages afforded by the Internet appear able to facilitate lower forms of democratic participation such as notification, public comment, and ‘thin’ forms of consultation best” (p.596).
Mullen, Patrick R.2005. “E-Government
Performance-Reporting Requirements.” InHandbook
of Public Information Systems,
ed. David G. Garson. NY:
-The development of IT performance-based laws encouraged the use of technology and e-government by arranging standards of performance around the utilization of e-government capacities and technologies.
-“The e-Government Act (e-GA) of 2002 includes promoting the use of the Internet and other IT to provide government services electronically; strengthening agency information security; and defining how to manage the federal government’s growing IT personnel needs” (pgs.600-601)
-Office of Electronic Government develops within the OMB
-GPRA “the Results Act”
-Use private-sector practices out goal setting and goal review for performance measurement.
-IT performance-based laws put in place
-Require performance-reporting, information must be converted into implementation.
-Performance Based Laws enacted by Congress
-Paperwork Reduction Acts of 1980 and 1995
-Not only reduce paperwork, but allow for easier public access to government information.
-Computer Security Act of 1987
-“…to improve the security, including privacy, of sensitive information in federal computer systems” (p.606).
-Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996
-“…to improve the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of federal programs through the improved acquisition, use, and disposal of IT resources” (p.607).
-Takes part in the evaluation of performance goals set involving agencies and IT needs.
-Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998
“…authorizes OMB to provide for acquisition and use of alternative IT by federal agencies. Alternative IT includes (1) electronic submission, maintenance, or disclosure of information as a substitute for paper and (2) electronic signatures in conducting government business through e-government transactions” (p.608).
Government Information Security Reform Act of 2001
-Provide Framework of controls over info resources
-Continued interoperability while maintaining security measures
-Management and oversight of related security risks
-Maintain and develop minimum controls
-Act as mechanism for improved oversight
-E-Government Act of 2002
“…to enhance the management and promotion of e-government services and processes” (p.610).
-Creates interagency committee for guidance of agency websites
-Public presentation of fed courts’ cases online
-Adherence to uniform security standards for info
-Private-public sector relationship between IT programs
-Federal agencies and OMB must file reports with Congress
-Six IT security weaknesses uncovered by Fiscal Year 2002 Report to Congress on Federal Government Information Security Reform
1. Lack of agency senior management attention to IT security
2. Nonexistent IT security performance measures
3. Poor security education and awareness
4. Failure to fully fund and integrate IT security into the capital planning and investment control process
5. Failure to ensure that contractor services are adequately secure
6.Failure to detect, report, and share information on vulnerabilities
(above IT security weakness from p. 611)
-Improvement on performance and accountability will help transform the technology of the federal government by maximizing the efficiency and abilities of IT.
-Agency track records before Congress, OMB, etc.
-decision making for spending level and expansion of IT internationally and among our e-government relies on these agency track records.
Parks, Jonathan D. and Schelin, Shannon H .2005."Assessing E-Government Inovation."
-global integration theories
-“The power of E-Government technology lies in its ability to even the playing field for all sizes and types of governments.
-Technology as a link between citizens and government.
-IT will spread from one area or level of government to another as the benefits are seen and other groups become interested.
-The decentralization theory and e-government have a relationship as each is able to support the other’s prospects for development.
-The lower level bureaucrats may eventually lose their jobs to computer programs which may perform the basic tasks needed.
-Five stages of e-government:
-Emerging web presence