Openness

Obama takes another step toward open government with this advice to federal agencies to release records and information to the public unless it will result in "forseeable harm," although I think we all know that it's pretty hard to forsee all possible harm. At least we're shifting the burden back to government having to show forseeable harm instead of the burden on the FOIA-request-making public to have to show need.

Signing statements

I was going to write about signing statements last week when Obama issued one, but then I saw that Melissa had posted on this topic, so I just commented on her blog with my thoughts. Now, the NY Times editors are weighing in. Melissa was definitely correct in saying that people will be watching Obama to see if his actions match his words. The NY Times editors say "...the speed with which he issued this statement, and the number of provisions he objected to, raise concerns that he may use these statements too aggressively. It will bear watching."

Indeed.

OMG - the Government Gets Proactive

For once, the Feds have identified a potential problem BEFORE it gets out of hand and are proposing an amelioration. Here's hoping they move at industry speed and not government speed, or even this radial proactivity will end up reactive.

See "Improving Grants.gov" from Benton

Federal Website Assessment

OK, so this is not the first time I have assessed a website. This is actually a topic I have taught to undergrads. And I completed a usability test of a non-federal but still government website last year in Chuck’s Evaluation class (with Aaron). So, some of this week’s reading are familiar territory. But, I have never really thought about web assessment from an information policy perspective.

I know what works and what doesn’t when it comes to web design, based on usability readings and my own background in printing and newspaper layout (bet y’all didn’t know that). But knowing what works and what doesn’t has very little to do with actual implementation. I am forever arguing with my undergrads about the difference between making a website for yourself, where you can use any design you like, and making a website at the behest of a client. With a client, you HAVE to do what THEY want. All you can do is offer suggestions, provide options, and try to make the strongest possible case for a website that follows usability and accessibility guidelines (i.e. the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services usability guide on Usability.gov and Jakob Nielsen’s recommendations on UseIt.com).

[Side note on functionality: No matter what you have to give in to regarding usability, accessibility and aesthetics, all features of any system should always FUNCTION. For goodness sake, what’s the point of non-functioning features?]

In class, my students usually choose a for-profit business or a FSU department for their web redesign project. In the fall, though, one group chose the FAFSA website, which I agree is pretty awful. [FAFSA is the Free Application for Federal Student Aid in case any of you are blessed not to need student aid and don’t know about the FAFSA.] Anyway, the group made changes to the website that would put it in violation of federal laws. For example, they didn’t know they have to include a privacy statement and a link for FOIA requests.

When you are designing a web site for a Federal agency or department, the first step should be identification of all information policies and regulations that relate to web site assessment (McClure, Sprehe, & Eschenfelder, 2000). At the very least, start with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Policies for Federal Websites (2004). Obviously, not all Federal web sites are designed this way since so many violate the Section 508 accessibility regulations (West, 2008), let alone usability issues.

But failure to follow existing guidelines is not the only information policy issue related to web assessment. The scope, implementation, and enforcement of existing policies are also critical (Eschenfelder, Beachboard, McClure, & Wyman, 1997).

Yes, there is Section 508, but is it current? Is it relevant with current assistive technologies? I am guessing no, but someone needs to actually verify my guess.

Also, we know the potential value of E-Government to open government, cost savings, etc. (Freed, 2009), but do we know exactly how much return on investment (ROI) the Federal government is getting by utilizing electronic technologies? And do we know how much ROI they COULD be getting, e.g. are they getting less ROI than they possibly could get? Nielsen explains how much ROI governments could get by increasing usability, something that suggests that E-Government services are not getting the overall ROI they could get. Nielsen says that on average, websites increase desired metrics by 135% following a usability redesign (2003), although this figure has declined some (to 83% in 2008). He also explains the ROI that government agencies get from usability, especially when they engage in e-commerce (2007), something Freed tells us they do fairly well (2009).

Meanwhile, we know from the American Customer Satisfaction Index that Americans seem satisfied with E-Government services (Freed, 2009), but the satisfaction level of 74.1 out of 100. That’s a C. Hardly what I’d call satisfaction, more like complacency. There is a BIG difference between satisfaction and success. Aaron and I found that out last year when we did a usability test on MyFlorida.com. The five test participants said they were satisfied with certain aspects of MyFlorida.com that they did not use successfully. For example, there were tasks that the testers “completed” because they found an answer, but it was the WRONG answer. Yet, they were SATISFIED. This is satisficing, and that is a far cry from success.

And there’s another issue with Americans’ satisfaction with E-Government – the comparison between that and traditional government service. Apparently, satisfaction with E-Government is higher than satisfaction with traditional government. But who is reporting their satisfaction? You know that voluntary surveys are full of methodological holes so how reliable are the ACSI data (Grob’s argument for good enough evaluations notwithstanding)? Consider the fact that last year they reported a three-year low for E-Government satisfaction but not it’s an all-time high (Freed, 2008, 2009). How weird does that seem? And there’s the possibility that Americans have higher expectations of traditional government than E-Government so even equal service quality could get a higher satisfaction rating for E-Government than traditional government. Going back to the usability test Aaron and I did last year, most of our testers indicated they started with REALLY LOW expectations of MyFlorida.com. So even though they were “satisfied” with the services, that’s based on a low starting point!

I obviously have a lot to say on this topic. Good thing I am presenting this week!

References

Eschenfelder, K. R., Beachboard, J. C., McClure, C. R., & Wyman, S. K. (1997). Assessing U.S. federal government websites. Government Information Quarterly, 14(2), 173-189. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from Science Direct database.

Freed, L. (2009). American customer satisfaction index: E-Government satisfaction index. Ann Arbor, MI: ForSee Results. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.theacsi.org/images/stories/images/govsatscores/0109q4.pdf

Freed, L. (2008). American customer satisfaction index e-government satisfaction index [Electronic resource]. Available from http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=178&Itemid=181

Grob, G. F. (2003). A truly useful bat is one found in the hands of a slugger. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(4), 499-505. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from Science Direct database.

McClure, C. R., Sprehe, J. T., & Eschenfelder, K. (2000). Performance measures for Federal agency websites: Final report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, School of Information Studies, Information Use Management & Policy Institute.

Nielsen, J. (2008, January 22). Usability ROI declining, but still strong. Alertbox [Electronic resource]. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/roi.html

Nielsen, J. (2007, February 12). Do government agencies and non-profits get ROI from usability? Alertbox [Electronic resource]. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/government-nonprofit.html

Nielsen, J. (2003, August 25). Usability 101: introduction to usability. Alertbox [Electronic resource]. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html

Nielsen, J. (2003, January 7). Return on investment for usability. Alertbox [Electronic resource]. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/roi-first-study.html

Office of Management and Budget. (2004). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies: Policies for Federal agency public websites. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-04.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Research-based web design and usability guidelines [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines.html#1

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Usability.gov [Electronic resource]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.usability.gov

West, D. M. (2008). State and federal electronic government in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Dangers of Google Docs

1. I hope I don't get banned from Google for posting this article.
2. I stopped using Google Docs a while ago, but not for security and privacy reasons. Just because Google Docs deleted all your MS Word formatting which is hugely annoying.
3. At least Google is honest about their security breaches.

Check it out: "Google Privacy Blunder Shares Your Docs Without Permission"

Lieberman also wants public access to CRS briefs

So Patrice is not alone in lamenting that more CRS issue briefs need to be made public. Lieberman agrees. I do too, but I hope there isn't a secret brief hiding in there about Nicole and my topic for class, or if there is, that it remains secret until we're done. Otherwise, what are we going to do?

Obama names new Chief Information Officer

So Obama has named a CIO - Vivek Kundra. Here's the scoop -

From the NY Times.
Kundra speaks.
Lynn Sweet calls the new CIO Obama's E-Gov czar.
You know you've made it when you get a Wikipedia entry.

Hmm ... usability/accessibility of my own blog

After ruminating on last night's class, I decided to change some of the colors and the font size in use on my blog. Hopefully, it's more readable now. :)

Who will run the GPO?

I know most of my classmates probably noticed this, but I thought I'd post it here since I was just talking about the GPO - "Web Archivist Campaigning to Head GPO."

Note Malamud's 7 point plan to improve GPO -

1) Lead the effort to make all primary legal materials produced by the U.S. readily available. [LAUREN says - What does readily available mean? (Since we all know just putting a document on a website, or in GPOAccess, does NOT mean it's "readily" available!)]

2) Work more closely with libraries and reform the Federal Depository Library Program to give them more support. [LAUREN says - REFORM to give MORE support, sounds suspicious to me!]

3) Establish a United States Publishing Academy to provide workforce development and vocational training for students on how to print and publish effectively. [LAUREN says - What does effectively mean in the electronic environment, and is he even talking about e-publishing or is he still talking about old-school print publishing?]

4) Form a blue ribbon commission to reexamine the design of passports and other secure documents. [LAUREN says - To what degree is this a valuable use of anyone's time?]

5) Create more materials for the public domain, both as fully produced books as well as freely available master files for others to use and remix. [LAUREN says - Not sure the concept of MORE printed materials will fly.]

6) Radically change how the government presents information on the Internet by means such as installing a cloud for .gov to use or upgrading the government's video capabilities. [LAUREN says - Whee! Do we think this is realistic, and on what timetable?]

7) Be fully transparent in its own financial affairs and a forceful and effective advocate for the public domain. [LAUREN says - Really? Because I am pretty sure the mission statement already says they advocate for the public domain, but it's good to continue pushing this.]

For extra fun, check out Malamud's "prepared statement." Love the uber-subtle likening Malamud to Ben Franklin, America's first public printer, inventor of bifocals, and no friend to those who would forsake civil liberties in favor of security ("They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety").

Gaming in Libraries

So, librarians catch flak for not being with the times. Then, they try to be hip to attract new library patrons. Then, they catch flak for that (cf. "Nebraska Auditor Cries Foul on Gaming in Libraries"). Seems like a lose-lose situation to me! Grr.

Ironically, the VERY NEXT article in this week's AL Direct was "ALA Releases Gaming Toolkit" - talk about conflicting stories!

This seems to me to be an issue getting back to the unfunded mandate of libraries. If libraries were a mandate, with EXPLICIT descriptions of their mandate, i.e. whom they serve (including teens and children), how they serve (including using emerging technologies to maintain current), etc., then libraries would be less often subjected to such silly rebukes.

Federal depository libraries and the GPO

A lot of the readings on the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) talk about the future of the FDLP in the face of electronic information creation and dissemination (cf. Depository Library Council, 2006; Hernon & Shuler, 1996; Library Services and Content Management, 2009; Sudduth, 2008, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004, 2008). What I find interesting is how the E-Gov Act was passed in 2002, and 7 years later, we still don’t know what the role of the FDLP should be in the era of electronic government information. I know government moves slowly, but sheesh.

The mission of the FDLP is to ensure the American public has access to government information (Depository Library Council, 2006; Library Services and Content Management, 2009; Sudduth, 2008; U.S. Government Printing Office, n.d.) – an important responsibility if the American public is to have any knowledge of what’s going on in government (McDermott, 2006). In light of the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, the mission of the federal depository libraries is shifting from simple repositories to facilitators in the federal information dissemination process (Depository Library Council, 2006). Some (i.e. Sudduth) even question whether “…a federal depository program designed for the nineteenth- and twentieth-century paper environment provide[s] adequate access in a twenty-first-century electronic environment?” (Sudduth, 2008, p. 7)

The Depository Library Council (DLC) identifies a few key issues related to the need for structure and standardization of methods to handle electronic government information (2006) – notably document and metadata standards, public tools development, version control, authenticity of documents, and public education. I agree these are critical issues for the FDLP, but I would argue these issues transcend the FDLP to be critical to libraries and other information resource providers in general. These are issues related to ALL electronic information, not just government information, especially when one considers DLC’s remark in the conclusion that the American public is increasingly bypassing libraries when seeking all information.

While it is necessary and important to bring these issues to the attention of Congress in the context of federal government information, it is equally important to make it clear to legislators and others in power that these issues need to be addressed and resolved at a meta level – ALL electronic information rather than just electronic government information. There do seem to be others out there who agree with me, note that the Federal Depository Library Program Strategic Plan, 2009-2014 discusses the changes to library services in the digital environment in the context of ALL libraries, not just depository libraries (Library Services and Content Management, 2009).

Meanwhile, Hernon and Shuler identify 4 assumptions of the FDLP that need to be questioned and reevaluated (1996). I was especially taken with the fourth assumption, that depository libraries would expand collections and services as more publications and information become eligible for depository distribution. No mention of increased funding, I wonder why. Apparently so do Hernon and Shuler who subsequently ask if depository libraries can and will take on more of the cost burden as GPO is downsized (and note Sudduth’s figures (2008) – the estimated federal budget for FY 2007 included only $1.5 billion for producing, gathering, and preserving government information, a mere 0.056% of the entire federal budget). I am guessing in the economic climate where libraries barely get any funding, the answer to that is NO. Even if libraries wanted to take on more of the costs (and really, who ever wants to take on more cost?), they couldn’t!

References

Depository Library Council. (2006). “Knowledge will forever govern” A vision statement for federal depository libraries in the 21st century. Location: Depository Library Council. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/council/dlcvision092906.pdf

Hernon, P., & Shuler, J. A. (1996).The depository library program: another component of the access puzzle shifting to electronic formats. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.) Federal information policies in the 1990s: views and perspectives (pp. 259-278). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Library Services and Content Management. (2009). Federal Depository Library Program strategic plan, 2009-2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Library Services and Content Management. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.fdlp.gov/home/about/237-strategicplan

McDermott, P. (2007). Who needs to know? The state of public access to federal government information. Lanham, MD: Bernan.

Sudduth, W. (2008). Federal government information policy and the electronic federal depository library. In Andrea M. Morrison (Ed.), Managing Electronic Government Information in Libraries (pp. 3-13). Chicago: American Library Association.

U.S. Government Printing Office. (n.d). About the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) [Electronic resource]. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://catalog.gpo.gov/fdlpdir/FDLPdir.jsp?mode=-2

U.S. Government Printing Office. (2004). A strategic vision for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Federal Depository Library Program, U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.fdlp.gov/home/about/237-strategicplan

U.S. Government Printing Office. (2008). Regional depository libraries in the 21st century: a preliminary assessment: final report to the Joint Committee on Printing. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.fdlp.gov/home/about/209-studyofregionals

Accessibility

The topic of accessibility is extremely important – not just when talking about website evaluation. It is important for ensuring equal access to information for all persons, regardless of their physical and cognitive abilities, and especially when you see the numbers – 54 million Americans have disabilities (Jaeger, 2006). Also, note Jaeger’s reminder that this number will only grow as the baby boomers age.

John presented on accessibility last year in Evaluation class (I believe that website accessibility is his preferred research stream), and I remember that he said this about accessibility – the area has relatively clear standards, but little evaluation is being done. Thank goodness for Paul Jaeger and (not brown-nosing here) the Information Institute, or probably even less would be done!

Most of you probably know that 1. Chuck loves multi-method iterative evaluation and 2. the Institute conducted an evaluation of the Florida Electronic Library, so you can probably guess that #2 involved #1 (Bertot, Snead, Jaeger, & McClure, 2006). That study combined functionality, usability and accessibility testing, getting back to a point Chuck highlighted in class when I discovered the problem with the button location on (I think) USASpending.gov. I had enlarged the text on the webpage but then couldn’t click the “Go” button because the link hadn’t shifted with the text. Chuck asked if that was a usability, functionality, or accessibility issue. Now that I have been properly indoctrinated, I of course knew the answer – D. All of the above. So not only is accessibility important in its own right, it’s important to overall usability and functionality as well.

I do find it interesting that Section 508 has exemptions since I don’t really see why any federal electronic and information technology system should NOT provide equal access for all persons, regardless of ability (IT Accessibility & Workforce Division, n.d.a, n.d.b). And I was especially interested to see what the exemptions are – systems used for military command, weaponry, intelligence, and cryptology, also back office equipment used by service personnel for maintenance, repair, etc. Um, the military and intelligence departments can discriminate against differently-abled persons, and that’s OK? And repair men (and women, I suppose), cannot be people with any disabilities? What? Congress didn’t see the problems with this? Meanwhile, there’s the “undue burden” exemption, yet another example of vague language. Section 508 actually includes a definition of undue burden [I was really excited], but it means “significant difficulty or expense” with NO definition of the ever-popular significant [suddenly I was less excited] (IT Accessibility & Workforce Division, n.d.a, n.d.b).

But, it’s great that we even have Section 508. That’s a huge step forward. Now, if only it were implemented, which Jaeger reminds us is not happening in any standardized, government-wide way (2006). Jaeger’s policy analysis revealed that Section 508 requirements and guidelines, if correctly implemented, should produce websites accessible to most or all disabled persons. So why aren’t they? One possibility that agencies don’t all give accessibility the same level of importance. Another is lack of funding. And education. So, what can we do about this? There needs to be stronger enforcement of Section 508, and that probably requires some punitive impact on non-compliant agencies since we know the carrot approach to motivation does not work well with civil servants.

References

Bertot, J. C., Snead, J. T., Jaeger, P. T., & McClure, C. R. (2006). Functionality, usability, and accessibility: iterative user-centered evaluation strategies for digital libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 7(1), 17-28. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from Emerald Insight database.

IT Accessibility & Workforce Division, Office of Governmentwide Policy, U.S. General Services Administration. (n.d.a). Section 508 standards [Electronic resource]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, IT Accessibility & Workforce Division. Retrieved February 27, 2009, http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12

IT Accessibility & Workforce Division, Office of Governmentwide Policy, U.S. General Services Administration. (n.d.b). Summary of Section 508 standards [Electronic resource]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, IT Accessibility & Workforce Division. Retrieved February 27, 2009, http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=11

Jaeger, P. T. (2006). Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government Web sites: a multi-method, user-centered evaluation of accessibility for persons with disabilities. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 169-190. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from WilsonWeb database.

E-Government

Electronic government holds the promise of improved government services at reduced costs (National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), but the challenge to fulfilling that promise is not minor. There are lots of tradeoffs to consider here, many of which relate to all electronic services, not just electronic government services.

Let’s take customization for example. People increasingly want customized, personalized services (West, 2008), but they do not necessarily understand what they have to give up to get them – total privacy. How do you maintain your privacy from the system (meaning not identifying who you are) while simultaneously asking the system to be customized for you. This is quite a conundrum. Either the system knows who you are and what your preferences are, thereby enabling personalization, or you remain anonymous. But then, if you are anonymous, the system cannot be personalized to your tastes.

There is also a tradeoff when asking systems to be more interactive and convenient but maintain your privacy. The FAFSA website (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) has been criticized for being a too complicated online process. Right now, students and their parents have to dedicate well over 30 minutes to completing this form online, when most of the information is the same information you have already sent to the IRS when you filed your taxes. Wouldn’t it be great to just click a button when submitting your taxes that says “Send My Tax Information to FAFSA”? I think so, but to do that, we are asking two federal agencies to share our information between them. And there are certainly privacy issues there. Once the IRS is sharing your tax information with FAFSA, it’s not too many steps for them to share it with other federal agencies. How far do we want to go in the name of convenience?

A possible answer lies in the idea of “opting in.” Opting in means each user chooses for himself or herself whether or not to provide the information necessary to personalize the system to his or her preferences. This way, users who wish to maintain their privacy can do so (at the expense of personalized content, of course), and users who wish to reveal some of their identities in exchange for personalization can do that.

References

National Archives and records Administration. (n.d.). E-Government Act of 2002 [Electronic resource]. College Park, MD: The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/egov-act-section-207.html

West, Darrell M. (2008). State and federal electronic government in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

The Homeland Security Act

There’s obviously plenty to talk about regarding the Homeland Security Act (just like with the USA PATRIOT Act), but I thought I’d concentrate on something that entertained me (just like with the USA PATRIOT Act). Mosaic theory.

Mosaic theory says that aggregated unclassified information can reveal highly classified and other sensitive info (McDermott, 2007). This actually makes a lot of sense. You get a lot of disparate information together, and voila! You can see the whole picture. Certain members of the former Administration have used mosaic theory as supporting evidence that virtually all information needs to be classified (albeit informally) since all of the information has the potential to inform terrorist activities.

Of course, those same clever politicians wrote the Homeland Security Act to allow mosaic theory to work for law enforcement and intelligence agencies by facilitating cross-agency information sharing (Relyea, 2004). This is yet another example of what’s good for the goose is NOT good for the gander. When it’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies, information sharing is a good thing, but when it’s the rest of us, information sharing is an act of potential terrorism. We’re back to the definitions roulette game I talked about in relation to the USA PATRIOT Act.

I was also amused to note that the Homeland Security Act established the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (6 U.S.C. § 705). In case you’re interested, “The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties assists our dedicated colleagues to secure our country while preserving our freedoms and our way of life” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2009). Sounds like the language the DOJ used in their über-unbiased Report from the Field, doesn’t it? Wonder who’s actually writing this stuff.

Meanwhile, at the same time that the federal government is protecting its own information, it can be prying into your information, sharing that information among law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and doing mysterious other things with it (Seifert & Relyea, 2004). For all we know, they could be selling our information to the highest bidder, never mind the dubious security measures in place to protect our personal information from leaking all over the place. I’d hate to think what all my personal information, in the aggregate, would say about me!

References

Homeland Security Act. (2002). 6 U.S.C. § 101.

McDermott, P. (2007). Who needs to know? The state of public access to federal government information. Lanham, MD: Bernan.

Relyea, H. C. (2004). Homeland security and information sharing: federal policy considerations. Government Information Quarterly, 21, 420-438. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from WilsonWeb database.

Seifert, J. W., & Relyea, H. C. (2004). Do you know where your information is in the homeland security era? Government Information Quarterly, 21, 399-405. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from WilsonWeb database.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2009). Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties [Electronic resource]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0371.shtm

The USA PATRIOT Act, the most impressively clever acronym EVER

This week’s readings about the USA PATRIOT Act bring up a few questions in relation to the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and the definition of a record. I am confused how the same people who wrote that “tangible things” include “books, records, papers, documents, and other items” (Pub. L. No. 107-56 § 501) and these have been interpreted to include electronic records (Doyle & Yeh, 2006) can subsequently say that e-mails are not records. Notwithstanding my confusion about how “tangible” items can be electronic (have we consulted the dictionary ever?), how can records include electronic records when they are the library and Internet records of suspected terrorists but exclude electronic records when they are the President’s and Vice President’s e-mails? Either a record includes both paper-based and electronic materials or not. This is like defining information as a thing when we are concerned with systems-based design but information as a process when we are concerned with user-based design. It’s BOTH definitions ALL of the time, not pick your definition to suit your personal interests.

Meanwhile, I had a good laugh at the way civil liberties are simultaneously taken away and protected by the same legislation. According to the USA PATRIOT Act, these tangible things can be requested regarding a U.S. person (side note: does this mean resident or citizen?) only when the investigation “is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution” (Pub. L. No. 107-56 § 501). Um, what activities are not protected by the First Amendment? Reading library books? Using library computers to search the Internet for information? Pretty sure those are protected under free speech, but apparently not. Apparently, the USA PATRIOT Act is protecting our civil liberties by stipulating that investigations cannot include requests for information protected by the First Amendment while we are interpreting all activities to, in fact, not be protected by the First Amendment.

Even more laughter came with reading the DOJ’s Report from the Field. First of all, I am pretty sure the DOJ is not protecting both American lives and liberty but is in fact protecting lives at the expense of liberty (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). I also did not know that the DOJ was waging the war on terror “…with a constant awareness of its obligation to preserve freedom and with scrupulous attention to the legal and constitutional protections for civil liberties” (28-29). I think I missed their scrupulous attention, unless they mean the attention to removing protections for civil liberties. For goodness sake, they gloat that § 210 allows them to obtain subpoenas for information about people’s electronic communications “without requiring investigators first to undertake the time-consuming step of applying to the courts.” (18) Yeah, those processes that protect civil liberties are really more a hindrance than anything else.

In contrast to the DOJ who assures us the government is protecting our civil liberties while cracking down on terrorism – and child pornography, and other non-terrorist criminal acts that are suddenly covered under the anti-terrorism laws, EFF reminds us that the government has in fact taken away civil liberties, and this was done without ANY evidence whatsoever that possessing civil liberties was a hindrance to intelligence gathering (EFFector, 2003). It’s pretty hard to read any of this week’s readings with a straight face since it’s all heavily biased, but it is easier to read something written by an organization that shares my biases towards the intrinsic value of civil liberties (in case you thought for one nanosecond that I am a conservative).

References

Doyle, C., & Yeh, B. T. (2006). Libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.opencrs.org

EFFector. (2003). EFF analysis of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that relate to online activities (October 31, 2001). San Francisco, CA: Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Report from the field: the USA PATRIOT Act at work. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Justice.

Policy Analysis Methodologies

Let me start by saying I am a little confused. First, I think that Chuck believes that it is not possible to be objective and empirical in the social sciences (I agree!). Then, Chuck says to explain how I will objectively and empirically analyze the issue I am proposing for my final issue brief. Ok … am confustigated. Anyway, let me talk about policy analysis techniques in the context of the readings and stop worrying about this oxymoron.

I already know from taking Evaluation of Networked Information Systems that Chuck is a big fan of outcomes measurement, and I see that Anderson (2005) agrees with him about its utility. Yes, it is important to identify and measure policy outcomes, or the consequences for society, but as Anderson notes, this is also really difficult. The consequences of a policy for society are hard to operationalize and hard to measure, never mind the inestimable number of years you might have to wait to see what the consequences has been for society.

Yesterday in Seminar in LIS Education, Kathy Burnett talked about how you can’t evaluate an issue while it is ongoing by looking at current literature trends. Instead, you have to wait 10, 20, or more years to see how the issue played out. (This was about the iSchool movement for those of you not taking that class.) The same can be argued about policy issues. Yes, policies affect us in the here and now, and we can certainly look at past policies and see what impacts and outcomes they have had SO FAR, but to determine the consequences a policy has had on society, we would really have to wait decades, or maybe centuries.

Causality is a whole other issue – Anderson reminds us that causality is extremely difficult to determine in social science research (2005), and we know Chuck’s view on this issue, and then I read Pawson and he’s explaining some “model of generative causal explanation” in which he combines outcome patterns, generative mechanisms, and context to determine causality (2006). Leaving aside the dubious nature of the generative mechanisms, is it really enough to combine three measures and POOF you determine causality? I kinda doubt it.

Not to brown nose, but I was much more impressed by the descriptive assessment described in McClure, Moen, and Bertot (1999). “Descriptive assessment relies primarily on existing policy and literatures, and is the process by which it is possible to describe and analyze a policy area” (p. 314). No determination of causality, just using a multi-method approach to gain a multi-viewpoint explanation of what is going on regarding a policy issue/area. Boom. Sounds simple (relatively compared to Pawson’s approach), believable, and DOABLE (really the most important). [Side note: we know for sure that Chuck approves the multi-method approach since it is also lauded in McClure & Yaeger, 2008.]

I especially appreciated the realistic (note that is REALISTIC not Pawson’s REALISM) approach to reviewing related policy instruments – comprehensive OR selective. That’s what I mean by DOABLE. But then of course, McClure et al. say that “Descriptive assessments do not replace empirical study” (p. 328, emphasis in the original) which leaves me in dire straits since I have to identify a method by which I will “empirically and objectively” study the issue I am planning to use for my issue brief. A conundrum.

In case you were confused by what I said and think I enjoyed the Pawson reading, let me clarify a little here. I was extremely suspicious of any methodology espoused by someone who names his kids Rhino and Rosebud and likens evidence-based policy to a tryst. Never before have I seen such romantic language in a methods book –

“Evidence-based policy is much like all trysts, in which hope springs eternal and often outweighs expectancy, and for which the future is uncertain as we wait to know whether the partnership will flower or pass as an infatuation.” (Pawson, 2006, p. 1)

References

Anderson, J. E. (2005). Public policy making, 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

McClure, C. R., Moen, W. E., & Bertot, J. C. (1999). Descriptive assessment of information policy initiatives: the Government Information Locator Service as example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 314-330. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from Wiley InterScience database.

McClure, C. R., & Yaeger, P. T. (2008). Government information policy research: importance, approaches, and realities. Library & Information Science Research, 30, 257-264. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from ScienceDirect database.

Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patrice's Prescriptions

I agree with McDermott that the citizenry needs to pay attention to what’s going on, should be outraged by limitations (or complete walls) to access, and should get involved (2007). But, and I hate to sound negative here, it is simply not realistic to think that billions of people all are going to pay attention to information access issues. Some have other concerns, and rightly so. Should a doctor be more concerned about the quality of information access of the quality of health care? McDermott would argue that information access affects everyone, and she’s right, BUT most people have too much on their plates and have to prioritize. Personally, I would rather the doctor I see in the ER be more concerned with the quality of health care s/he is providing than the level of access to government information.

So – then whose job is it to pay attention to information access issues? The people who are information providers, for a start. That means librarians/archivists, library and i-school faculty, journalists, IT folks, etc. Also, people who scrutinize politics such as policy analysts, political scientists, journalists again, etc.

Much of the problem has to do with knowing what information is out there, indexing it, and making it searchable and retrievable across systems (hello the Holy Grail of interoperability). I think those of us who have taken the Seminar in Foundations of LIS know whose job that is. Not government, that’s for sure. It’s a little unreasonable and a lot unrealistic to ask people whose job is politics to do the job of information professionals. That’s OUR job. Why would we even want them doing it? Then what would we do (besides engage in a never-ending debate over the definition and nature of information, no thank you)? A useful solution would be if (and I know how big of an IF this is) government would commission studies on access from experts on access, listen to those experts, and hire real archivists, librarians, database engineers, etc. to organize and make accessible all of the government’s information.

So, is this a question of forcing implementation and regulation of existing policies? Or, is this a question of advocating new policies that make explicit the need for trained information professionals in government positions where they can organize and make accessible government information? I think both. We certainly need FOIA to be enforced. We certainly need the Presidential Records Act (as written and not as interpreted by certain members of the Axis of Evil) to be enforced. But part of that enforcement requires those trained information professionals. You really can’t expect management folks, budget folks, or any other non-information folks to know how to compile a finding aid, organize a catalog, or make any of it searchable through metadata. That’s what we have librarians, archivists, and other information professionals for!

Anyway, we have a little ray of hope right now since we have a new administration, one that at least says it favors openness and accountability, and one that is more inclined than the previous administration to hire/appoint qualified people (as opposed to “favor” appointments) to government positions. So, now is the time for information professionals to begin lobbying for stronger positions in government where we can actually make a difference.

References

McDermott, Patrice. (2007). Who needs to know? The state of public access to federal government information. Lanham, MD: Bernan.

Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)

Let me start with a definition from my trusty Oxford College Dictionary –

Eliminate: completely remove or get rid of (something)

By that definition, one would expect that the Government Paperwork ELIMINATION Act would be about completely removing or getting rid of (paperwork). Ha ha ha. Yes, it is important that GPEA allows Executive Branch agencies to use and collect electronic signatures and electronic forms. Yes, it is important that GPEA established the legality of these e-sigs and e-forms. But, NO, GPEA does not eliminate anything. It only stipulates that the agencies must provide an alternative method of submission besides paper, when “practicable” (see note below). It does not say these e-forms are replacing, or will ever be completely replacing, paper. So what exactly is being “eliminated” here? Still don’t know.

References

Government Paperwork Elimination Act. (2006). 44 U.S.C. § 3504. Retrieved January 27, 2009 fro Lexis/Nexis Congressional.

Lindberg, C. A. (Sr. Ed.). (2007). The Oxford college dictionary, 2nd ed. New York: Spark Publishing and Oxford: Oxford University.

Note – Defining Practicable

Thanks again to the Oxford College Dictionary: able to be done or put into practice successfully; able to be used; useful. Based on this, I am not sure GPEA really expects any agency to do anything about e-sigs or e-forms since there is NO measure given of success. If there is no measure of success, then you can’t determine if the action can be practiced “successfully,” therefore it is not “practicable.” I don’t even want to think about what “able to be used” or “useful” mean in a government context. Grr.

Legislative tracing

Aargh. Legislative tracing is VERY difficult. I have a new found respect for the CRS and the staffers on Capitol Hill. This is definitely yet another job to cross of the list!

Seriously, though – Margaret Clark was FABULOUS. I had begun the tracing before leaving for ALISE and also worked on it over the weekend when I got back, but like Nicole said, there was a lot of wheel spinning and very little progress. Margaret really helped me know WHERE to look for WHAT, an invaluable bit of information for this assignment. I have used THOMAS before so I already knew it would be cumbersome, and I have used WestLaw and Lexis/Nexis before, but not to this degree. I definitely liked Lexis the best of all the databases. I was especially excited to find the CFR in Lexis/Nexis Academic. Way to go Lexis!

Meanwhile, after doing all that (and some of you know exactly what “all that” was since you were forced to sit next to me or take my phone calls while I worked on it – thank you, BTW), I still have NO CLUE how on Earth GPEA made it into the emergency appropriations bill of 1998 since I could not find any place where the text of GPEA was inserted, not until the bill was already signed into law. Oh, the mysteries of the Federal government.
Not looking forward to doing this again for the final project…just kidding, you know I love a challenge. :)

References

Clark, M. (2009). Federal statutory research and legislative history [PowerPoint presentation]. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University College of Law Research Center.

Government Paperwork Elimination Act. (2006). 44 U.S.C. § 3504. Retrieved January 27, 2009 fro Lexis/Nexis Congressional.

Slightly off-topic library rant

Ok, this is not really an information policy issue, it's more of a library facility policy issue, but that's close enough. I just went to Strozier (to get books for this class, I swear), which seems to be on a quest to provide an endless supply of what-not-to-do stories. They have switched the location of check out to the Information Desk at the entrance. The old check out desk is now just for returns.

That's right, folks. You check OUT books at the entrance and you check IN books at the exit. Perfectly intuitive.

And of course, there are NO signs indicating they have made this switch. Sigh.

We love libraries

I was excited to note that the NY Times' guide to DC for people going to the inauguration included a very-pro-libraries piece on the Library of Congress (See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/arts/design/16cong.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink). In talking about the construction/architecture of the LOC, author Charles McGrath says "it's gratifying that someone once though books deserved such an impressive home" and also quotes Jefferson's explanation as to why Congress needed to keep his eclectic and comprehensive collection - TJ could not think of any subject to which a Member might never need to refer. This is particularly lovely to remember in a moment when the outgoing Exec. Branch does not seem to think that historical records deserve to be kept at all.

Public policy making process

First of all, Duff’s discussion of the barriers to information policy making made me cringe and think of Aaron and the Bureau of Antelope Affairs. Thank you Duff (2004), for reminding us that no one in LIS can agree what “information” means and that this lack of consensus (or some might say spinning of our wheels) causes a multitude of problems, not the least of which is an inability to agree what comes under “information policy.” If we could agree to disagree and just take a working definition, maybe we could get somewhere. Of course, Buckland (1991) tried to do just that, but we (LIS academics) don’t seem eager to embrace his 3-part working definition.

But of course, the inability to agree to the definition of information is only part of the problem. Even if academics could agree, we would have to then get politicians to accept our definition and start organizing/creating information policies. I am not sure I really need to enumerate the further challenges here: the gazillion stakeholder groups, the inherent challenges in the policy making process evident in the aforementioned discussion of the legislative process (see previous post), the changing views from Administration to Administration, Congress to Congress, and throughout American society, yada yada yada.

Chuck asked us to bring definitions of public policy making process. I had found something based on OED definitions of public policy, policy-making, and process, but now I am wondering if this term is simply an oxymoron. Jones (1984) cites a dictionary definition of process as a series of actions aimed at an end. I am not sure I see any of this public policy making as “aimed at an end” so can we really say it is a process? Or is it more of a never-ending Merry-Go-Round with riders jumping on and off?

References

Buckland, M. K. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 351-360.

Duff, A. F. (2004). The past, present, and future of information policy. Information, Communication & Society, 7(1), 69-87. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from Informa database.

Jones, C. A. (1984). An introduction to the study of public policy, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

P.S. I am not saying anything about Reyes (2001) since reading that after reading Jones (1984) gave me an intense feeling of déjà vu, and I am always trying to work on that whole “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” thing, although perhaps not always successfully.

Legislative tracing

As I embark on a legislative tracing project for GPEA, all I can really say about the sources on how a bill becomes a law and the pathfinders/resources for tracing legislative history is that I cannot believe how cumbersome the process looks from the outset. I hope it turns out not to be so complicated, but previous experience using Federal sources leads me to believe otherwise. I like the optimistically simple explanation of legislative history from the Syracuse pathfinder: the collection of documents created by the legislative process that cumulatively reveals the history and intent of a statute or law.

I will say this, as simplistic as the Schoolhouse Rock video is, it is surely easier for the average American to understand than the diatribe on THOMAS. I don’t imagine that the majority of Americans are overly familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order, or care to become familiar with them. Even those of us who have some knowledge of these rules (ahem, me) could easily find the THOMAS discussion of how a bill becomes a law too detailed and complicated. From Chuck’s description of the process, though, it almost seems like the description on THOMAS, written by Charles W. Johnson, Parliamentarian, United States House of Representatives, is less complicated than the actual process. One wonders how any bill ever becomes law, sheesh.

References

Federal legislative history pathfinders and guides. (n.d.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Law Library. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://www.law.syr.edu/Pdfs/0Fed%20Legis.pdf

From a Bill to a Law. (n.d.). THOMAS [Electronic resource]. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/laws_made.html

Warburton, T. (1973). I’m just a bill [Video media]. Schoolhouse Rock. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

Blog appearance

FYI - I changed the template to an easier-to-read color scheme, per Nicole's request. If anyone has trouble reading this color scheme, let me know and I will change it again.

Weeks 1 & 2 Readings

Information policy impacts my ability to do my job and that is why I have always been active in following what is going on in regards to national and state government. I found out early on in my career that, especially in education, it is very important to know what is going on that can impact my profession. I realize through the various historical aspects that we have read about that while staying informed on current events I have neglected the past and we all know what happens when we don’t learn from the past. Relyea (2008), McDermott (2007), and Herndon et al. (2002) present a comprehensive historical look at public policy as it relates to information and access to information. It was interesting to see while they all presented information on some of the same legislation they each had their own slant on the issues. While it seems that there is some agreement on the past, there is no exact agreement as to which constitutes a definition of “information policy.” Duff (2004) goes back to the argument that maybe we first need a definitive idea of what information is before we can define information policy.

In reading Jones (1984), Anderson (2006), McDermott (2007) and McClure (1999) we are presented with the question of what is information policy and why should we care about it. I like McClure’s (1999) concise definition of “interrelated principals, laws, guidelines, rules and regulations, directives, procedures, judgments, interpretations, and practices that guide the creation, management, access and use of information” (p. 307). The “creation” part of this definition of information policy really struck me and caused me pause for thought. I guess I am on the other side of the coin, in that I am a librarian and always worried about access issues. Yet in this age of Web 2.0 and the participatory culture that is growing up because of it the “creation” aspect is becoming more and more important. In fact we are already seeing an increase in copyright and intellectual freedom issues coming to light.

I also found interesting the idea that information policy can be considered a sort of “meta” policy in that it affects all other policy systems. This makes sense to me because of the assumed multidisciplinary aspect of information science in general. As for the why we should care question, I have to say I am inspired by McDermott’s (2007) passion and identify with her cynicism! I am coming to realize that I need to be concerned more about the bigger picture of information policy. I tend to focus on my own small world of education and what I see as having a direct impact on my students and me as an educator. For example, when ALAWON sends out briefs or alerts that don’t relate to school libraries, education or children I tend to hit the delete key. Though through these readings it is becoming clear that everything trickles down and does impact me as an information professional.

References
Anderson, J. (2006). Public policy making (6th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Duff, A. F. (2004). The past, present, and future of information policy.Information, Communication & Society, 7, 69-87.

Jones, C. O. (1984). An introduction to the study of public policy (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Corp.

McClure, Charles R. (1999). United States information policy. In K. Allen (Ed.) Encyclopedia of library and information science [Electronic version] (vol. 65, pp. 306-314). New York: Marcel Dekker.

McDermott, P. (2007). Who needs to know? The state of public access to federal government information. Washington DC: Bernan Press.

Relyea, H. (2008). Federal government information policy and public policy analysis: A brief overview. Library & Information Science Research 30, 2-21. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from ScienceDirect database.

What Is Information Policy and Why Does It Matter?

I like to take classes where I don’t know too much about the subject since that gives me more room to learn something, and that is certainly the case here. I have an idea of what information policy is, and some examples of information policies like FOIA and CIPA, but I am not really too familiar with information policy overall so I am looking forward to this class - and NO I am not brown-nosing. I am serious.

The debate over the definition of information comes into play when trying to define information policy (McClure, 1999), which I am sure is annoying several of my classmates. Personally, I am ok with agreeing that we cannot truly come to a consensus definition, but I think a working definition would be invaluable in this case. How on Earth can we talk about policies about something when we have no working definition of that something? Maybe it would help to have a policy stipulating that information is one or more specific things, like the definition of a retainable record that McDermott (2007) quotes from the Federal Records Act. If we could at least agree on what we are saying “information” is, then we could begin to narrow down the areas of policy that govern it (cf. Duff, 2004).

Ok, forget about defining information. What about the definition of information policy? McClure tells us it “is a term used to describe a set of interrelated principles, laws, guidelines, rules and regulations, directives, procedures, judgments, interpretations, and practices that guide the creation, management, access, and use of information” (1999, p. 306-307). Given that this expert is also our professor, this is obviously a definition we should seriously consider sticking to in class, even if it is based on the term “information” as we still have no consensus definition for that.

Why does this matter to us? There are 7 students and 1 professor in this course, all of whom are part of the College of Information. Obviously, we care about information, trying to define what it is, understand how people access and use it, and improve that access. Therefore, we need to be concerned with government policies that regulate what counts as information (as opposed to a secret which is arguably data and not information since we 1. don’t know it’s there and 2. are unlikely to find out about it), how that information is recorded, saved, stored, and indexed so that we can also worry about how well people can access and use it.

I find it dangerous and scary that the majority of information professionals seem to take little interest in information policies until those policies are in place (like libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act). Wouldn’t it make more sense if those information policies were written by people who know something about information, its collection, storage, indexing, retrieval, use, et al.? Then we could have some say in the policies governing our discipline so those policies help rather than hinder the field, both academics and practitioners. Of course, in order to do this, we would first have to follow Relyea’s advice and learn how to analyze existing policies to understand how them came into being, how they are now, and how to alter them in the future (2008).

NOTE: I could only access 2/3 of Chuck’s article in the Encyclopedia of Library & Information Science since pages 308 and 310 are missing from the Google Books preview. If anyone knows where to get the whole article, please let me know.

References

Duff, Alistair F. (2004). The past, present, and future of information policy. Information, Communication & Society, 7(1), 69-87. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from Informa database.

McClure, Charles R. (1999). United States information policy. In Allen Kent (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science [Electronic resource], vol. 65 (pp. 306-314). New York: Marcel Dekker.

McDermott, Patrice. (2007). Who needs to know? The state of public access to federal government information. Lanham, MD: Bernan.

Relyea, Harold C. (2008). Federal government information policy and public policy analysis: a brief overview. Library and Information Science Research, 30, 2-21. Retrieved from ScienceDirect database January 7, 2009.

Lawmakers Behaving Badly

Not actually policy related, but a comment on our policy makers that sounds exactly like what we were talking about in class on Tuesday - a lack of civility. From the Washington Post: When the results from the election were officially read in a joint session of Congress on the House floor most rose to applaud. A notable exception was Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader of the Senate, on the front row. This comment from columnist Dana Milbank rings true: "There's nothing quite like public petulance by our leaders to make the current age seem small. And McConnell had company in his bad manners. McCain, the vanquished Republican presidential nominee, skipped the ceremony entirely, along with two-thirds of the Senate. On the Republican side of the aisle, 41 seats were empty."

Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2009

Well looks like here we go again withe the issue of the presidential records. The House voted on and passed H.R. 35, Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2009 and H.R. 36, Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2009.

H.R. 35 revokes President Bush’s executive order (E.O. 13233). This ruling invalidates part of E.O. 13233 that allows former Presidents and Vice Presidents to review executive records before they are released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2009 makes it mandatory to disclose all donations to charities set up to build presidential libraries. It passed the House (388-31).

Obama Links Ed Tech to Economic Growth

When catching up on reading some educational journals this week, I ran across this article: Obama Links Ed Tech to Economic Growth. This economic stimulus plan could mean funding coming to the schools for broadband internet access and computers.

"From the integral role that technology played in his campaign to indications that he will create a chief technology officer in the federal government for the first time, Obama has led many ed-tech experts to believe that the new administration will revolutionize the way technology is viewed and used in the United States, and, it is hoped, in K-12 education."

There were a few items that made me think of information policy. The Relyea article described and gave a brief history of the Presidential Records Act which requires that all presidential correspondence be made part of the public record. This article explains that Obama's favorite means of communication is his blackberry and unless a solution is found he may have to stop using it to send and receive emails. Also mentioned in reference to Obama's commitment to technology is his move to appoint a chief technology officer for the government.

Another item to watch for in regards to policy will be Obama's appointment of Arne Duncan as U. S. Secretary of Education and his attempts to lead the new administration’s effort to improve the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act and to work with Congress to rewrite the law for reauthorization.

Keeping tack of each student's blogs

Hi all -

If you want to keep track of your posts (and to make things easier for Chuck), tag your posts with your name. Then each of us will be able to find all of our posts.

To do this, after you write a post but before you publish it, add LABELS (below the text box) and make sure one is your name. I did it for this post so you can see what it will look like.