|
E-Government II
Lessons Learned in
Michigan
: Best Practices for Local E-Government
by
Carrie Hammerman
Carrie Hammerman is a policy analyst
with cyber-state.org. In this capacity, she conducts research and
analysis on the role of information technology within health care,
education, economic development and e-government in the state of
Michigan
. She can be reached at (734) 302-4734 or chammerman@cyber-state.org.
Cyber-state.org, a nonprofit,
nonpartisan information and communication technology research and
advocacy organization, has been working with governments and
communities in
Michigan
, acting as a catalyst for exciting initiatives aimed at building
digital inclusion for all its citizens. The organization is in its
fourth year of conducting local government website assessments and
reporting on key findings about e-government initiatives in
Michigan
. In this time period, there has been a dramatic growth in the
number of local communities developing official websites and
embracing information communication technology to meet the needs of
their citizens. Cyber-state.org continues to provide an independent,
professional analysis of
Michigan
’s local government websites to recognize innovative and effective
practices that help citizens find information and interact with
their local officials, as well as to encourage all of the state’s
local governments to get on line. The trends we have uncovered over
the past several years may shed light on best practices and
innovations for local governments across the country.
In its most recent assessment, conducted between
January and May 2004, cyber-state found that nearly 30% of
Michigan
’s local governments use the Internet to connect with their
citizens and businesses. This is a dramatic growth over the past few
years. In the first assessment, conducted in 1999/2000, only 5% of
all
Michigan
’s local governments had official websites. Not only have more
communities identified the need for having a Web presence, but also
local governments are increasingly becoming more sophisticated in
their use of technology in the development of their websites.
In this year’s analysis of local government
websites in
Michigan
, cyber-state.org noted several interesting trends in the
development and design of websites.
In an online survey of
Michigan
residents conducted in April 2004 residents indicated a clear
preference for government services delivered via a portal. Over
two-thirds of respondents said they would make greater use of
government services on line if they could access the information
through a single website linking local, state and federal
information. This preference bodes well for communities working
together to provide online services. Indeed, there has been an
increase in intergovernmental cooperation with communities within a
region sharing resources and leveraging their capacity to meet the
online needs of citizens.
As an example,
Washtenaw
County
, located in
Southeastern Michigan
, has offered to develop and host websites for the local
municipalities within the county. For those who accept this offer,
they also receive unlimited email, tech support and professional
development. The municipalities are able to take advantage of the
county’s content management system and utilize the infrastructure
the county has spent years developing. Similarly, nearby
Oakland
County
offers every local jurisdiction in its borders free high-speed
Internet access, email hosting services, access to GIS software and
training, and online e-commerce capabilities. They have created a
system called “Access Oakland” to facilitate online transactions
for citizens who want to pay taxes, look up assessment data, buy
maps, order birth, death and marriage certificates, and pay traffic
tickets. Local communities provide their local records to the county
to put into this system, and the county, in turn, hosts the services
for free for the local communities. To help mitigate the costs
associated with providing the information,
Oakland
County
shares a portion of the revenues from fees charged to citizens for
enhanced access to public records with the local communities.
In another example of intergovernmental
cooperation, several counties throughout the state (Leelanau, Van
Buren, Charlevoix and Hillsdale) and the communities within them are
taking advantage of the model developed by the Land Information
Access Association (LIAA), based in
Traverse City
,
Michigan
. LIAA has developed a Community Center software program, which they
refer to as a “content management system and Web-based digital
mapping application designed to support community-building
processes.” Through this tool, all of the local jurisdictions
within a county that adopts it are able to provide information on
line about their community, including posting meeting minutes,
newsletters, ordinances, reports and other information. Thus,
communities that might otherwise not have a Web presence have moved
on line through this collaborative tool.
External
Providers
Communities
turning to LIAA as an external vendor to develop and host their
websites is indicative of another trend – local governments are
increasingly outsourcing work on their websites to external
companies and organizations with more specialized expertise. Some
have sought private companies to develop and maintain their entire
website, while others have sought help on particular services. As an
example, a number of local governments have been introducing
e-commerce capabilities through their websites to allow residents to
pay utility bills, parks and recreation fees, parking citations and
taxes. To enable citizens to make these payments on line, local
governments would need to implement secure payment websites to
protect residents’ personal name and address information as well
as their credit card data. Creating and maintaining this
functionality can be a burden on communities, so numerous
municipalities have sought the services of companies like the
Official Payments Corporation. As of May 2004 over 55
Michigan
municipalities (counties, townships, cities and villages) had turned
to this private vendor to process payments securely on line.
Communities have also sought external vendors to
help with their information dissemination efforts. For instance,
over 120
Michigan
communities have turned to the Municipal Code Corporation to host
and maintain their ordinances, meeting minutes and zoning
regulations on line. Making this information available on line
ensures that everyone knows where to find the most current
information and allows for full-text searching.
A third trend is the growth in communities
moving beyond websites that simply provide static information toward
interactive and transactional websites. Local governments taking
these steps understand that the Internet provides new ways to
structure the relationship between citizens and government. They are
realizing the opportunities to better meet the needs of citizens in
the online environment by taking advantage of the new means for
interaction with the public. As highlighted above, numerous
communities are allowing residents to make payments through their
websites as an alternative to making payments in person or by mail.
This service has the advantage of standardizing the payment process
and allowing payments to be received more quickly than if they were
submitted through the mail. Citizens are also able to make the
payments on their own time, instead of waiting in line down at City
Hall during business hours. As an example of an innovative,
interactive feature,
Michigan
’s second largest city,
Grand Rapids
, has implemented a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based Public
Inquiry system. Using this online tool, residents can contact the
city regarding potholes, dead animals in the street, vacant
buildings and trash that hasn’t been picked up, or they can
register complaints/compliments about the Grand Rapids Police
Department. Any type of inquiry can quickly and easily be made with
this tool and then visitors can revisit the website to obtain
information on the status of their inquiries.
Addressing of Privacy Concerns
While addressing citizens’ privacy concerns may
not be as widespread as the other three trends, it is interesting to
note the heightened awareness by local governments and the efforts
to address these worries.
Curiously,
Michigan
residents continue to state a strong preference for not putting
public records on line; in the most recent cyber-state.org survey,
over 80% of the
Michigan
public said that they do not want government to keep public records
on the Internet. This preference may be perplexing to local
governments that recognize the large number of residents visiting
their websites to find information. In an attempt to understand the
desires of citizens in this area, Internet respondents were asked if
there ought to be limits for those accessing one type of public
records – those pertaining to property taxes. Unfortunately,
respondents provided no clear direction. The response was split –
nearly as many people wanted built-in limits on accessing property
tax records as wanted none. Nonetheless, some communities in
Michigan
are pondering this issue and trying different approaches. As an
example,
Midland
County
allows the public five free searches of property tax information. If
website visitors desire more, they must pay a fee that is determined
by the number of property searches they want to do in a year. This
restriction limits data mining efforts, while still making the
public information available.
Another community, the city of
Sterling Heights
, offers a privacy policy that is written in layman’s language and
provides detailed explanations so visitors to the site can
understand how their information is collected and used. For
instance, they write, “When you visit our site simply to browse,
read or download information we will not collect any individual
identifying or personal information. Nor will we use ‘cookies’
without your express permission or any other means (such as Adware
or Spyware) to track your visit in any way. Based upon the data we
do collect during such ‘information-gathering’ visits, the city
cannot ascertain any personal information regarding an individual
user (such as name, street address or telephone number).” The city
has made clear efforts to address citizens’ concerns and offers a
straightforward explanation of how personal information is or is not
used and collected. This reassurance helps to alleviate citizens’
privacy concerns.
Conclusion
Over the course of the last four years of cyber-state.org’s
Local Government and Community Initiative, we have seen climatic
advancements in municipalities’ Web presence and practices. Local
governments utilizing e-government solutions understand how vital it
is to use technology to disseminate information and provide service
to the public. Website initiatives continue to break down the
barriers that constrict citizens from interacting with their local
governments, enabling citizens to conduct transactions, perform
inquires and increasing opportunities for civic participation.
Additional information regarding cyber-state’s
assessments of local government websites can be reviewed at the
Local Government & Community Initiative section of cyber-state.org’s
website (http://www.cyber-state.org/1_0/1_4_1.html).
|
