Newsgroups: alt.etext From: dell@wiretap.spies.com (Thomas Dell) Subject: [GOVDOC-L] Calif AB1624 Online Access to Legislation.. Message-ID: Organization: The Internet Wiretap Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 17:49:17 GMT Newsgroups: bit.listserv.govdoc-l Message-ID: <199304220610.AA26026@well.sf.ca.us> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 11:49:42 EST Sender: Discussion of Government Document Issues From: Jim Warren Approved-By: Diane Kovacs Subject: UPDATE #2-AB1624 Online Access to Legislation / MORE PUSH NEEDED Lines: 209 California Assembly Bill 1624 would mandate that already-computerized public legislative data be publicly accessible by modem. The bill's sponsor is Assembly Member Debra Bowen (D-Torrance/Marina del Rey area). This update reports: 1. Timing and progress on the bill. 2. Issues raised in the Rules Committee hearing. 3. Sponsor's planned changes to the bill. 4. Much-needed constituent and citizen support-action. 1993 OR BUST If a committee votes against the bill, then the proposal cannot again be introduced by anyone in the Assembly until 1995, the next two-year session. BRIEF RULES COMMITTEE HEARING, APR. 19 The Assembly Rules Committee heard the bill Apr. 19th, chaired by John Burton (D-San Francisco). Four people came forward to speak: Assembly Member Debra Bowen, the bill's sponsor, Ted Laliotis, Los Altos City Council member and former Mayor and Director of Emerging Technologies, Hewlett-Packard, a woman from Common Cause whose name I failed to get, and I, Jim Warren. But, only Bowen and I were ever permitted to speak. IMPOLITE DISTRACTIONS As soon as Ms. Bowen began to present her bill and explain it -- and almost every time she spoke in the ensuing discussion -- a man sitting next to Chairman Burton immediately began talking to the Chairman in much more than a whisper. I asked later, and found he was the Assembly's Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Connelly [an Assembly staff member; not an elected official]. Also: At one point, Bowen displayed a file-folder of support letters and faxes about an inch thick. No one seemed to notice or care. NO ORDERLY PRESENTATIONS I had the impression that Bowen was not finished with her explanation when the Chair asked, "How's this going to be done?" That ended any planned presentations and the hearing became a random question-and-answer discussion. USE THE INTERNET, WITHOUT COST TO THE STATE As technical questions arose, I was eventually permitted to speak, to answer questions. That gave me the opportunity to outline the size and cooperative style of the Internet and propose that public access could be implemented by making legislative data available via that 'net, costing the state no more than a daily phone call -- explaining what Bowen was proposing. After briefly outlining the Internet, I proposed nightly downloads to one or several cooperating Internet hosts that would agree to make the files available to other hosts without charge to the state or to the other host- computers. [by anonymous ftp] I mentioned that the Legislative Data Center Director and Coordinator had agreed they would need no more than a server-class computer to do this, and I said a donor machine could be found if they couldn't afford one. (needs to handle less than a gigabyte of data for a two-year legislative session; a "heavy load" in March averaged only 1MB -- one megabyte per day.) DOUBTS ABOUT COOPERATIVE SHARING Several committee members showed clear doubts -- perhaps disbelief -- that people (a) would accept and store files without charging for it, and (b) would really permit others to copy them without charge. They questioned those ideas at some length. QUESTIONED MOTIVES OF "FREEWARE" PROGRAMMERS They were further doubtful when I said that, if the data were available without charge, volunteer programmers would quickly develop programs to search, sort, index, cross-reference and otherwise utilize such data, and many would share them without charge. The notion of cooperative sharing for mutual benefit was clearly a questionable proposal. There were repeated queries of, "Why would they do that?" and, "What's in it for them?" I mentioned civic responsibility, public access to the public's legislative process and,"Because it's there," but some were obviously not convinced. MAINTAINING INTEGRITY OF DATA They expressed serious concerns about downloaded files being modified. One mentioned concern that legislators' votes might be modified to misrepresent their positions. I said there were numerous established solutions to this. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY The most serious concern was whether they could make any money from this -- especially if any recipients of the data charged for using it. This prompted a side-discussion about giving away copies of bills to constituents versus selling them in their "bill room" to lobbyists. I urged that host-computer operators not charging users extra to use public legislative data not have to pay for it, but was less concerned if the Legislature collected royalties from information-distributors that charged specifically for using legislative data -- like Compu$erve's extra charges for using the OAG (Official Airline Guide). They asked how they could protect their data, and I [stupidly] said they might copyright it but grant free use for those who don't charge extra to use it while collecting royalties from those who do. Dumb! -- but they were clearly getting concerned that someone might make money off of their data without them sharing it. BUILD THEIR OWN SYSTEM? One of them -- I think it was the CAO (Connelly) -- said they could build their own system and reap the profits. This was not extensively discussed, but it clearly remains an alternative that will have to be addressed. COMMITTEE CONCLUDED; BOWEN PROMISED AMENDMENTS Near the end, a minority-party member spoke up strongly in favor of the proposal. He said it was the way of the future and the legislature should be part of it. I later found that he was Ross Johnson, Committee Vice-Chair. Chairman Burton then looked at me, said to get a memo to him on this, and declared they'd delay action on it. Sponsor Bowen said she'd amend the bill to include the state codes and state constitution, as well as already-specified legislative data, and would specify cost limits. (I wanted several hundred dollars a month for data-line costs.) [SOME] MAJOR ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 1. Can they make money selling their public legislative data? 2. Should they set up their own information-distribution system to do so? 3. Can they collect money from those who charge for using this data? How? Can they protect it from private for-profit use (the copyright issue)? [They clearly dislike the idea of downloading the information without cost and then having anyone profit by selling it.] 4. Can the integrity of the data be assured if they allow copies to circulate beyond their control? [They already do, via current distributers.] 5. Would people *really* receive, store and share the data, and develop and share processing programs, without charging? For FREE?!! 6. They still need better general understanding of the Internet -- structurally and operationally. 7. If they download to the Internet, what types of hosts should be used? Must they be government-owned systems? 8. Should this be studied, reviewed, considered, analyzed and picked-apart? [The standard mechanism for delaying or killing a proposal, sez I.] 9. Minor red herring: There are only a few [million] "elite" computer users who could use this -- and there are suggestions of some monumentally- expensive public-access alternatives (IBM kiosks in malls, 800-number phones with information clerks standing by, etc.). [Must we wait for them?] I've agreed to draft a layperson's outline of how this can operate, and also outline what would be likely if they tried to build their own system [I cannot envision it being a pretty site :-) ]. In this memo, I will address most of the technical and "cultural" questions posed above, supplying references and a variety of contacts. Suggestions herewith solicited. *********** !!!!!!!!!!! CALL TO ACTION !!!!!!!!! ************ ACTION ITEMS FOR THOSE WHO THINK IT'S *OUR* LEGISLATURE & DATA The Rules Committee may act on this within a week, or they may delay it for several weeks. If they pass AB1624, it is very likely that it will pass the Assembly and have an excellent change in the Senate. But -- 1. The Rules Committee members NEED TO HEAR FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS. NOW! 2. And, they need to hear from volunteers -- not in detail, nor so they can "choose" them -- but just so they can begin to believe they really exist. ACTION FOR CONSTITUENTS OF RULES COMMITTEE MEMBERS' DISTRICTS *Each* Rules Committee member needs to hear from constituents in their own Assembly Districts -- personal meetings, faxes, letters and phone calls. 1. *Briefly* express support for AB1624 and state WHY. 2. Explicitly request an explicit commitment to support AB1624. 3. Explicitly request an explanation if they decline to commit to it. The Committee members are: John L. Burton, Chair, Rules Committee (D-San Francisco) 916-445-8253; fax/916-324-4899; Room 3152 Burton is the key. If you have a SF address, call and fax and write him. Ross Johnson, Vice Chair, Rules Committee (R-Fullerton) 916-445-7448; fax/916-324-6870; Room 3151 Deirdre "Dede" Alpert (D-Coronado) 916-445-2112; fax/916-445-4001; Room 3173 Trice Harvey (R-Bakersfield) 916-445-8498; fax/916-324-4696; Room 4162 Barbara Lee (D-Oakland,Alameda) 916-445-7442; fax/916-327-1941; Room 2179 Richard L. Mountjoy (R-Monrovia) 916-445-7234; fax/916-???-????; Room 2175 Willard H. Murray, Jr. (D-Paramount) 916-445-7486; fax/916-447-3079; Room 3091 Patrick Nolan (R-Glendale) 916-445-8364; fax/916-322-4398; Room 4164 Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) 916-445-7587; fax/916-324-4657; Room 2188 Address: "The Honorable FFF LLL", California State Assembly, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento CA 94249-0001. Salutation: "Dear Assembly Member XXX; re: AB1624" Keep it to one page if possible -- but give reasons for supporting the bill. ACTION FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS In addition: 1. Fax, write and/or call John Burton's office -- as Rules Committee Chair. 2. Send one fax/letter to your representative and another one to one of the [other?] Democratic members on the Rules Committee. (It appears likely that the Republicans will support the bill, as did Vice-Chairman Johnson.) ACTION FOR OUT-OF-STATERS Urge that California provide leadership to the other states. Mention the benefits if all states could easily and economically access each others' codes and legislative data. [They, too, can benefit from free sharing.] ACTION FOR VOLUNTEERS HOST-ADMINISTRATORS, PROGRAMMERS & SERVER DONORS Send a one-page statement volunteering to store and share the files without charge. Say you will develop and freely share access software if the data is freely available. Offer to donate a server-class machine for downloading legislative data for everyone to share freely, if they can't afford one. Volunteer to help their staff install it. It will be helpful if you will let me what you said, sent or did -- and what response you received. [If so, indicate whether I may share it.] Timely, economical, widespread, public, online access to state legislative information, statutes and constitution, would allow the People to participate in their legislative process. Neat idea. --jim Jim Warren, Contributing Editor & "futures" columnist, MicroTimes jwarren@well.sf.ca.us -or- jwarren@autodesk.com 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814 [founder/Chair, 1991 Computers, Freedom & Privacy conference; InfoWorld founder (1978-1979); Autodesk Board of Directors member; blah blah blah]