31

Increasing Public Participation, Understanding, and Transparency of the Legislative Process Through the Use of Web DialogueThe Washington State House of Representatives hasundertaken steps to increase transparency of andexpand public access to the legislative process.One new strategy is to inform and solicit dialoguefrom the public through Web-based asynchronousdialogue in conjunction with the committeeprocess.

In 2005, the Washington State House of Represen-tatives set out to develop a strategic plan to guide itswork. Overwhelmingly, legislators’ major concernwas the confidence of citizens in the legislativeprocess. They felt that ordinary citizens were alien-ated from a process dominated by lobbyists andinsiders and were cynical about their prospects formaking a difference. Consequently, legislators set astheir number one goal to “increase public partici-pation, understanding and transparency of the leg-islative process.”

The house had already taken several steps to pro-mote citizen participation. The legislature has oper-ated for many years a toll-free hotline that citizenscan call at any time to offer their views on keyissues. In the 2007 session, the hotline logged innearly forty thousand calls. Ninety percent of theparticipants were satisfied that the hotline was agood way to leave a message for their legislator.

A legislative Website increases the transparency ofthe process by delivering real-time information onhearings, bills, and amendments; background infor-mation on the issues; and direct connections to leg-islators via e-mail.

Legislators also hold town hall meetings severaltimes a year in their districts on key issues of the dayto solicit the views of their constituents. WashingtonState has a twenty-four-hour public access television

network known as TVW that pipes legislative hear-ings, floor action, and interviews into living roomsthroughout the state.

By far the most important source of citizen input isthe biannual election. Legislators knock on thou-sands of doors and talk about key issues in their dis-tricts to as many of their constituents as possible.The problem is that once legislators get to the statecapital and the most important part of the lawmak-ing process begins, constituents are often far away.

Most of the deliberations on the issues of the dayoccur at the committee level. Twenty house commit-tees ranging from agriculture to higher education totransportation hold hearings and work sessions andpass bills on to the full house.

Working under the constraints of a part-time legis-lature, committees must hear, perfect, and pass billswithin a five-to-seven-week period. Under increas-ing pressures from lobbyists and constituents, thesheer number of bills has begun to strain the pro-cess, and as the legislature winds down the publicdeliberation time per bill in committee has shrunk toas little as seven minutes. Committee chairs havebeen forced to hear as many as ten to twelve bills ina two-hour period, thus limiting public testimony oncomplex pieces of legislation to an average span ofthree minutes. Sitting through three or four commit-tees per day, and hours of party caucuses, flooraction, and meetings with lobbyists and consti-tuents, legislators struggle to comprehend what citi-zens are telling them.

Ordinary citizens simply don’t have the time to driveto Olympia and wait in a long line of professionallobbyists and government experts in the hope thatthey can speak for three minutes.

B Y R I C H N A F Z I G E R A N D L A U R I E E . M A A K

© 2008 Wi ley Per iodicals , Inc .Publ ished onl ine in Wi ley InterScience (www.interscience.wi ley.com)

Nat ional Civ ic Review • DOI : 10.1002/ncr.212 • Summer 2008

32

Professional lobbyists work in teams, nabbing mem-bers in their offices, at lunch, in the halls, or in com-mittee meetings, targeting their message andworking members day in and day out. According tothe state Public Disclosure Commission report, lob-byists spent $43 million in 2006 to lobby legislators.

The end result is that legislators, with the best ofintentions to represent all of their constituents, endup having little time to hear their views during themost important period of lawmaking. Surrounded bypaid lobbyists, miles from home and crammed fortime, lawmakers struggle to make tough decisions.

The question is how citizens can get involved in thelegislative process when it most makes a difference.

A Strategy for Dialogue

How do you connect citizens more effectively to thelegislative process? This is a question of access. Howdo you bring the decision-making process into thecommunities and even into the living rooms of ordi-nary citizens? The answer to this question requiresbetter understanding of how people currently getinformation and how they would choose to partici-pate. Accordingly, the Washington State House ofRepresentatives will be conducting a survey to deter-mine how to more effectively reach the public. Thesixteen hundred resident surveys, to be conductedby Washington State University, will first determinehow people currently get information about thestate legislature and how they participate in the leg-islative process as well as their satisfaction with eachcomponent. The survey will also assess how theyprefer to get information as well as communicatewith the legislature.

The House of Representatives will also conductmarket surveys of users of current means of com-munications, including the legislative hotline, theWebsite, and the public hearings. Once this infor-mation is available, we will then evaluate our com-munications and our participation processes todetermine how we can increase citizen involvementfurther.

The second challenge is to create effective ways forcitizens to participate. In 2006, the house wired apublic hearing room to a high-speed video networkthat links legislative hearings to high schools andcommunity colleges throughout the state. The net-work will allow citizens from virtually any commu-nity in the state to testify at public hearings or toexpress their views at electronic town hall meetings.

In July 2007, we started a pilot project to create twolegislative committee Web dialogues that allowedcitizens to log onto their computers and share theirthoughts on two key public policy issues.

Our hope is that allowing people to express theirviews and share their expertise from their home oroffice computers will entice more citizens to partici-pate in the process. Equally important is to reachyounger residents who are much more tuned intothe Web. Our first survey of the state toll-free hot-line indicated that the average age of hotline userswas fifty-eight years old.

Once we reach interested citizens and they have par-ticipated in a Web dialogue, our third challenge is tosupply a mechanism for them to navigate the politi-cal process so they can continue to engage decisionmakers on the issue.

Following the Web dialogue or the remote hearing,we plan to connect citizens to a legislative Websitethat will allow individuals to track the issuethrough each step of the legislative process. TheWebsite will allow them to continue to offer theirviews until a final decision is implemented and a billbecomes a law.

National Civ ic Review DOI : 10.1002/ncr Summer 2008

Sitting through three or four committees perday, and hours of party caucuses, floor action,and meetings with lobbyists and constituents,legislators struggle to comprehend what citi-zens are telling them.

33

For example, students participate in a Web dialogueon student financial aid. They suggest that the cost oftextbooks is so high that combined with the cost of tuition and fees it contributes to students droppingout or not enrolling in college.

After the hearing or Web dialogue, the students areinformed via e-mail that a legislator has written abill on this topic. They are directed to a Websiteinforming them of the bill, how to monitor the bill’sprogress through the committee and legislativeprocess, and how and where they can comment onthe bill as it makes its way along.

Finally, citizens can get feedback. They need to hearwhat happened to the ideas they have contributedand what progress was made in tackling the issue. Ifthe policy was stalled or didn’t turn out the way theyexpected, they can be informed about how to con-tact their legislators to suggest a new course ofaction to get the ball rolling again.

The Web Dialogue Pilot

Two three-day Web dialogues were held July 23–25,2007. The Health Care and Wellness Committeehosted a dialogue on obesity that focused on thequestion, “What can the state do to reduce the inci-dence of obesity in Washington?” The HigherEducation Committee hosted a dialogue on access tocolleges and universities and asked, “What can com-munities, colleges, and universities and the state doto educate more students to higher levels?” Web dia-logues enable focused Web-based discussions over aperiod of days. Because they are not held in real time,interested individuals could participate throughoutthe days as their schedules allowed.

The goal for the pilot was to create a Web-basedcommunication resource that allowed the commit-tees to inform and engage the Washington public onthese and future issues.

The committees used the WebDialogues structureand process developed and hosted by WestEd, a non-

profit research and education organization based inSan Francisco. The committee staff was directlyinvolved in developing their content, building thedialogue Website, and conducting the dialogues sothey could independently create subsequent dia-logues. WestEd and committee staff worked togetherthrough every step of developing and conducting thedialogues.

The Website introduced participants to the issue andfurnished information and resources to enable themto become better informed and ready to participatein the dialogue. The home page outlined the com-mittees’ goals and how they intended to use theinformation. The agenda gave details on each day’stopic and its discussion “focus points.” Profiles ofthe panelists, subject experts, and members of thehosting committee carried brief biographies and pic-tures. The library offered resources on the topic withrecommended items linked to each topic. Discussionguidelines gave participants an overview of theWebsite and outlined the rules of the road.

The committees announced the dialogues for threeweeks. Each committee sent out two press releases,and several reporters were personally contactedabout the dialogue. Announcements were sent toorganizations and bloggers known to have an inter-est in the topics. Additionally, some committee mem-bers issued separate media advisories and mentionedthe dialogue in their online newsletters and bulletins.

Individuals were invited to visit the Website to learnabout the dialogue and, if interested in participating,asked to register. Registration captured basic demo-graphic information, including city, title, and orga-nization; role in the dialogue; postal code; age; andhow they heard about the dialogue and whether and how they had previously contacted their law-maker in the last five years. Individuals’ name, title,organization, city, role in the dialogue, and personalstatement were shared on the site. A map illustratedparticipant locations in the state. Dialogue managerswere able to view the collective totals for all demo-graphics and all responses to registration questions.

National Civ ic Review DOI : 10.1002/ncr Summer 2008

34

Conducting the DialogueWestEd and committee staff worked together tomanage dialogue production. Each morning partici-pants received an e-mail with an overview of theday’s agenda and reminders to review recommendedlibrary resources. A member of the hosting commit-tee’s staff and WestEd cofacilitated both dialogues.Each morning a facilitator introduced that day’sfocus point discussions, encouraged participants tojoin the conversation, and helped keep the conversa-tions focused.

Panelists were asked to contribute to the discus-sions throughout the day by sharing their expertise,offering insights, posing questions, and raising com-plex issues with the participants. Participantsreviewed and contributed ideas throughout thethree days, often late into the evening. Once intro-duced, a topic remained open for discussion untilthe conclusion of the dialogue so that participantscould continue to contribute to conversations initi-ated on previous days.

Summaries capturing highlights of each day’s dis-cussions were written in the late evening. Early thenext morning, they were linked to the agenda and e-mailed to participants prior to the introduction ofthat day’s new topic.

Who Joined the Dialogues?The turnout for the Web dialogues was moderate,not entirely unexpected because of the midsummerdates, when most colleges and universities are out ofsession and a prime time for annual vacations.

The obesity dialogue had 213 registered individuals.Twenty percent of the registrants reported that oth-ers in their family, office, class, or community groupwould be indirectly participating through them. Onthe basis of their estimates, indirect participationincluded an additional 121 people, increasing to 335the total number of people influenced by that dia-logue. The higher education access dialogue had 181direct registrants, with 25 percent of these individu-

als representing an additional 168 people. In theaccess dialogue, 349 individuals were directly orindirectly involved.

Females outnumbered males in both dialogues.Obesity had 36 percent more females. Access had 12percent more female than male registrants.Approximately two-thirds of registrants reportedtheir age. Roughly 60 percent were evenly distrib-uted in the thirty to forty-nine and fifty to sixty-fourage ranges. Eighteen to twenty-nine-year-olds repre-sented 10 percent in the obesity dialogue and 7 per-cent in the access dialogue. Three to 4 percent ofparticipants were sixty-five years and older.

Fourteen percent of access dialogue registrants and16 percent of obesity registrants had never contacteda Washington state legislator. E-mail was cited as themost frequent avenue for contact with legislators(62 percent obesity; 54 percent access). The nextmost frequent avenues cited for contact were letter,phone call, and personal meeting.

During the three-day obesity dialogue, sixty-ninepeople (32 percent) contributed a total of 274 mes-sages. Of these, a total of five messages were fromthree committee members. In the access dialogue,sixty-six people (36 percent) contributed 233 mes-sages to the conversation. Two committee memberssubmitted eight messages. On days when individualsvisited the site, 23 percent of the obesity dialogueparticipants and 38 percent of access participantsreported spending from one to more than two hours.

What Did Participants Say About the Web Dialogue?On the third and final day of the dialogues, partici-pants were asked to complete an evaluation form.Approximately 14 percent of the participants com-pleted evaluations, a seemingly low number but con-sistent with response rates in past dialogues. Morethan three-quarters of the respondents reported theirexperience was positive or somewhat positive (76percent and 81 percent, respectively, for the obesityand access dialogues).

National Civ ic Review DOI : 10.1002/ncr Summer 2008

35

Eighty percent of both groups thought there shoulddefinitely or probably be dialogues on other topicsin the future. Both groups mentioned follow-up tothe dialogue topics. Obesity dialogue participantssuggested a variety of health-related topics, includ-ing asthma, diabetes, pandemic flu, universal healthcare, and suicide. Access participants suggested arange of topics, among them competition for fund-ing between colleges, ways to help high school stu-dents meet math standards, planning for college,performance contracts, and tax policy.

Sixty-eight percent of obesity and 76 percent ofaccess dialogue participants agreed that they hadgained a deeper understanding of the dialogue issues;they considered new solutions to old problems (obe-sity, 49 percent; access, 57 percent), saw new op-portunities for action (obesity, 65 percent; access, 40 percent), and considered some of the trade-offsthat might be necessary (obesity, 71 percent; access,46 percent).

Participants said they would definitely or prob-ably view more favorably legislators who solicit thegeneral public’s opinion through similar online dialogues (88 percent obesity; 76 percent access).Approximately two-thirds thought similar dialoguescould definitely or probably help lawmakers under-stand constituents’ views and priorities. A similarpercentage thought they would be more involved inthe policy-making process if they could participatethrough similar online dialogues. Approximatelyone-third of the respondents in both dialogues feltthe dialogues would have a great deal or some influ-ence on legislators.

Lessons Learned

The dialogues brought new participants into the leg-islative process. For example, lobbyists representingcarefully orchestrated views of government agencies,colleges, and universities typically dominate tradi-tional public hearings when the issue is access tohigher education.

In the dialogue, participation was primarily front-line instructors, professors, financial aid officers,and deans who shared their own personal experi-ence. Furthermore, several individual students andparents contributed their views, individuals whorarely participate in traditional hearings.

Although the dialogue brought a different groupof participants into the public hearing process,only 14 percent of the participants had not partic-ipated in the legislative process in some form inthe past. Eighty-six percent of the participants hade-mailed, called, or actually visited a legislator ona public policy issue. This is a challenge that needsto be addressed in the future through morefocused outreach. Some effort was made throughMySpace and Facebook, but that effort did notyield any returns for this event. Although twolocal newspapers ran short articles, press coveragewas minimal.

The quality of the conversations was at a high level.Traditional public hearings consist of participantseach testifying for three or four minutes from a tablelocated at a level below a dais where legislators sit.Participants speak only to legislators, and the “dia-logue” consists generally of a monologue that maybe followed by a few specific questions from indi-vidual legislators.

The dialogue was more in-depth conversationbetween all of the participants, including the legisla-tors. Although the conversation was not real-time, itwas interactive. Participants could ask questions,propose solutions, or offer comments on the ideas ofothers. As the dialogue moved forward, ideasbecame more developed and clear solutions tothorny problems often emerged.

Perhaps the most important conclusion was that thedialogue not only offered the opportunity for awider group of people to participate in the legislativeprocess, it created a richer conversation than tradi-tional public hearings.

National Civ ic Review DOI : 10.1002/ncr Summer 2008

36

There were four major challenges that need to beaddressed if dialogues are to become part of theongoing legislative process.

First, the amount of staff time spent on the dialogueexceeded that of traditional hearings by a factor ofthree or four. Committee staff simply do not havethe time to organize ongoing dialogues and still do their jobs of writing bills, researching issues, andaddressing the needs of legislators.

This was to a large extent expected, with the ideathat the learning curve would allow the next dialogueto take less time, and with each subsequent dialoguetime and money invested in the process would bereduced. For this reason, follow-up dialogues were tobe scheduled. Many of the more time-consumingtasks in the first dialogue, such as securing expertpanelists or developing a library of resources, couldbecome more routine and less time-consuming.

For the obesity dialogue, the Health Care Commit-tee chair decided to opt out of the follow-up becauseof the time consumed on the first pilot. The HigherEducation Committee chair immediately asked staffto schedule the next dialogue and to use the ideasgenerated in the first dialogue to develop and pre-sent alternatives in the second dialogue.

Second, few legislator committee members chose toparticipate, and many of those participating felt thatreading and following the dialogue was too time-consuming.

Legislator participation appeared to be limited by twofactors: (1) Again, summer vacations came into play.Thanks to the legislative schedule, we were forced todo the first test pilot dialogues during late July, with

the effect of diminished participation. A follow-uppilot will test this conclusion. (2) Washington has a part-time legislature, and members operate under avery tight time schedule. Legislators were often unableto make the time commitment to scroll through thedialogues as well as ask important questions.

We are considering designing the follow-up dialogueto include a real-time component in which legislatorscan participate and ask questions of participants.The ongoing Web dialogue format would continueafter that but could be limited to a single day.

The initial dialogues dealt with very broad questionsand sometimes seemed unfocused and only periph-erally related to key policy questions. We are alsoconsidering trying a more issue-specific focus infuture dialogues.

There may be two pathways forward. First, with abroad public dialogue participants could exploreand test new ideas and approaches. This type of dia-logue could be hosted by the legislature or by a pub-lic entity promoting civic participation. A secondphase could include a more focused legislative dia-logue designed to follow up on more specific ideasand lead to legislation.

Third, components could be added to the Web dia-logue that make it richer and allow the public tonavigate the policy process as the ideas they discussturn into legislation and make their way through thepolitical process.

Video and audio components could be added toenrich the conversation. Not all participants wouldbe able to avail themselves of audio or video, but atthe very least legislators and expert panelists couldbe viewed or heard online.

Another dimension to the video approach could beto combine a live legislative hearing with a follow-up Web dialogue. The public hearing could be madeavailable on the Website, and then participantscould add further comment.

National Civ ic Review DOI : 10.1002/ncr Summer 2008

The dialogue not only offered the opportunityfor a wider group of people to participate in thelegislative process, it created a richer conver-sation than traditional public hearings.

37

Fourth, the legislative Web system could connect tothe Web dialogue and allow participants to follow abill through the process, along with further inputthrough a variety of means such as e-mail or phonecalls, as well as see the outcome of their input.

Currently, the legislature furnishes online copies ofbills and accompanying analysis, notice of hearings,and a tracking system that allows users to determinewhich changes to the bills have occurred and wherethe bill is at in the process. This added dimensionwould link the dialogue to all bills with similar top-ics and give updates and information on hearings vialistservs and e-mails.

Conclusion

Overall, the pilot dialogues demonstrate a methodof connecting to the public that allows access to law-making from citizens’ living rooms and offices. The

Web dialogues offer a richer discussion and theopportunity to develop new ideas not currentlyavailable through the traditional process. Lessonslearned could lead to changes in the dialogue thatwill be tested further in the second dialogue.Ultimately, this approach could become a perma-nent part of the lawmaking process.

ReferencesMcGann, C. “Lobbying Is Big Business in State.” SeattlePost-Intelligencer, July 1, 2007. Retrieved 8/26/07 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/322060_lobbyists02.html.

Washington State House of Representatives. Resolution No.4677, January 18, 2006. Retrieved 8/26/07 from www.leg.wa.gov/documents/house/hadm/HouseResolution.pdf.

Rich Nafziger is a member of the Washington House ofRepresentatives. Laurie E. Maak is a Web dialogue developerand manager at WestEd.

National Civ ic Review DOI : 10.1002/ncr Summer 2008