Government Sponsored E-Petitions

By: Elana Goldstein, Daniel Clark, Aman Jain & Wayne Moses Burke

Government Sponsored E-Petitions:

A Guide for Development and Implementation

Introduction: Overview of E-Petitions .................................1

Key Decisions in E-Petition Implementation .......................2

Determining Engagement Goals ................................. 2

ConnectingE-PetitionstoDecision-Making .............. 4

ManagingtheCitizen-GovernmentInteraction ........ 6

TechnicalConsiderations ............................................. 7

Evaluation ...................................................................10

Case Study: We the People – United States ......................12

Case Study: Queensland, Australia ....................................20

Case Study: Bristol, England ................................................26

Conclusion .............................................................................33

TablE Of COnTEnTsAmericaSpeaks and E-PetitioningAmericaSpeaks’workone-petitionsemergesoutofourmissiontoengagecitizensinthedecision-makingthatimpactstheirlives.E-petitionsofferanewmeansforgovernmentstoinvolvecitizensintheformaldecision-makingprocess,andifimplementedcorrectly,e-petitionscanimproveparticipationandincreasegovernmenttransparency.Petitioning,andelectronicpetitioningmorespecifically,embodiesmanyoftheengagementprinciplesaroundwhichAmericaSpeaksstructuresitswork.Westrivetoengagediverseaudiences,createlinksbetweencitizensanddecision-makers,anddevelopclearcitizenpriorities,allofwhichcanbeachievedthroughasuccessfule-petitionprocess.

Webelievethate-petitionsofferanexcitingopportunityforgovernmentstoengagecitizensinaproductivedialogueaboutpolicy-makingandhavegreatpotentialtostrengthentheconnectionbetweencitizenandgovernment,especiallyonthelocallevel.

acknowledgementsThe creation of this guide would not have been possible without the financial support of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. We would also like to thank Professor Tina Nabatchi of Syracuse University and Matt Leighninger of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium. Both provided essential insights that strengthened and refined the final product. The paper would not have been possible without the initial work of David Stern, who laid the groundwork for the guide’s design, and Steve Brigham, who provided guidance throughout the entire process. Finally, we would like to thank the government representatives from Bristol, Queensland, and the White House who made themselves available and were gracious with their time and expertise.

Copyright©2013,AmericaSpeaks

1

Overview of E-PetitionsTherighttomakeformalrequeststoanauthoritythroughapetitionhasbeenastapleofcitizengovernmentinteractionsincetheearly1400s,whenthepracticeofgovernmentpetitioningbecamewidespreadunderKingHenryIVofEngland.1TheEnglishpracticeofpetitioningmadeitswaytoAmericawiththefirstcolonists.IntheUnitedStates,therighttopetitiongovernmentcanbefoundintheFirstAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution,whichstatesthatthepeoplehavearight“topetitiontheGovernmentforaredressofgrievances.”Interestingly,petitioningduringcolonialtimes“requiredgovernmenthearingandresponse,”but“thisoriginaltheoryandpracticeofpetitioningfounderedwhenabolitionistsfloodedCongresswithpetitionsduringthedebatesoverslavery.Asaresult,therighttopetitionwascollapsedintotherightoffreespeechandexpression–adefinitionalnarrowingwhichpersiststotheday.”2Assuch,today,Americanshavearighttopetition,butnotarighttoagovernmentresponse.

Inthemodernera,manygovernmentshavebegunimplementinge-petitionprocessesthroughgovernmentwebsites.E-petitioning,shortforelectronicpetitioning,hasbecomemorepopularasaccesstotheInternethasgrownandmorecitizenshavebecomeusedtointeractinginonlinespaces.Whileanelectronicpetitionismostsimplydefinedasanypetitionsubmittedelectronically,thispaperusesthetermtorefertosystemsthatdealwithpetitionsthatarepostedthroughagovernmentwebsiteandallowforindividualelectronicsignatures.3

Inthe1990s,theriseoftheInternetspurredthegrowthofe-democracytools,whichpromisedtomakedemocraticparticipationmoreconvenient,accessible,andinteractive.Petitionswerealogicalplacefore-democracyexperimentationbecauseoftheirlonghistoryandpublicacceptance.Inthelate1990s,NapierUniversity’sInternationalTeledemocracyCentre,nowpartoftheCentreforSocialInformatics,begantoworkwiththeScottishParliamenttodevelopthefirstgovernment-sponsorede-petitionsystem.NapierUniversity’sworkwiththeScottishParliamentproducede-petitioner,aplatformthatwasusedtopilote-petitionprogramsthroughouttheUnitedKingdom.

E-Petitions as a Participatory ToolE-petitionshavethepotentialtoenablegreatercitizenparticipationingovernmentdecision-makingthroughincreasedcitizeninteractionwithgovernment.However,thisoutcomeisbynomeansguaranteed.Likemanyotherparticipatorypractices,anunsuccessfule-petitionprocesscanalienatecitizenusers,becomehijackedbylargeinterestgroups,andunderminethelegitimacyofgovernmentdecision-makingthroughperceptionsofmisspentgovernmenttimeandresources.4Yet,thesepotentialproblemscanbemanagedbydevelopingane-petitionprocessthatcreatesgenuineengagement.

Designingaparticipatoryinteractionbetweencitizensandagovernmentrequiresthate-petitionimplementersconsiderthetypeofparticipatoryenvironmenttheyaretryingtocreate.Ifpetitionerssignane-petition,butneverreceivearesponseoranyotherkindoffollow-oninteraction,howtruly

participatoryisthee-petition?Howisthecitizenpetitionermoredemocraticallyengagedthroughtheactofsigning?Thisexampleisnotmeanttodegradethepetition-signingprocess,buttohighlightthatasuccessfule-petitionprocessshouldcreateadeepersenseofdemocraticengagement.Onewaytocreatethatengagementisthroughsubstantiveandtimelypetitionresponses.However,petitionresponsesarenottheonlykindofengagementthatagovernmentcanprovide.Forexample,ifthee-petitionprocessencouragespetitionerstoengagewithelectedrepresentativesore-petitionadministrators,suchasclerks,citizenpetitionersmaydevelopagreaterunderstandingofthepoliticalprocess,whichmayenablepetitionerstobecomemoreeffectiveparticipatoryactors.5Creatingane-petitionprocessthatengagescitizenpetitionersinthiswaycanstrengthenthelegitimacyofthegoverningbodyandthepoliciesthatitcreates.

Whilee-petitionscanbeausefulmeansforsubstantivecitizenparticipation,theyaremostsuccessfulwhenusedaspartofalargerparticipatoryexercise.Additionalpathwaysforcitizenengagement,suchastransparentmeetingprocessesandonlinesurveys,canimprovetheimpactofe-petitionprocessesbyprovidingnewwaysforcitizenstofindoutabouttheworkofgovernmentandengagewithelectedofficials.Thegovernmentineachofthreecasestudiesconsideredinthisguideimplementedane-petitionprocessaspartofalargere-democracyorparticipatoryproject.

Purpose of this GuideThispaperisintendedtoserveasaguideforpublicmanagerswhoareinterestedinexploringe-petitionimplementationintheircommunities.Theguideisdividedintofivesections:ageneraloverviewofe-petitioning,anexplorationofthekeydecisionareasine-petitionimplementation,afederallevelcasestudy,astatelevelcasestudy,andalocallevelcasestudy.

Thediscussionofkeydecisionareasforimplementationfocusesonfivetopics:goalsetting,connectinge-petitioningtodecision-making,managingtheinteractionbetweencitizensandgovernmentinthee-petitionprocess,determiningtheappropriatetechnologyfore-petitionimplementation,andevaluatinge-petitionprocesses.Recommendationsone-petitionimplementationwithinthesekeydecisionareasareoffered.

Inanefforttoprovideawideswathofe-petitionmodels,ourcasestudieseachlookatadifferentlevelofgovernmentandengagementcontext.ThefederalcasestudyexaminestheWhiteHouse’s“WethePeople”e-petitionplatform.Whiletheplatformisstillrelativelynew(itbeganin2011),itprovidesanopportunitytoexplorebothexecutive-sidepetitioningandpetitioningintheU.S.context.OurstatelevelcaseconsidersQueensland,Australia’se-petitionplatform.Queenslandisaninterestingcaseinthatitemergedasaresultofpoliticalturmoilanddoesnothaveasignaturethreshold,despitethelargepopulationitserves.Onthelocallevel,weexplorethecityofBristol,inEngland,whichwasapioneerinlocalgovernmente-petitioningandusesamodelthatmaybeusefulforlocalitiesintheUnitedStates.

2

Key Decisions in E-Petition ImplementationLeaderswhoimplemente-petitionsfaceacoresetof

decisionsthatdeterminethecourseanddirectionoftheir

systems.Thedecisionareasdiscussedbelowareintended

togiveprospectivee-petitionimplementersasenseofthe

choicestheywillface,aswellasthepotentialoutcomes

associatedwithcertaindecisions.Thissectionisdividedinto

adiscussionoffivedistinctquestions:

• What are your engagement goals for e-petitions?

• How will e-petitions connect to decision-making?

• How will the citizen-government interaction be managed?

• What are the technical matters you must consider?

• How will the outcomes of your e-petition system be measured?

Whilethesequestionsareapplicabletoalle-petition

systemimplementations,theorderinwhichtheyare

addressedmayvary.Eache-petitionsystemisshaped

byitsgovernmentcontextandengagementculture.No

twoe-petitionprocesseswillbeidentical,andthese

questionsshouldbeconsideredasasuggestive,ratherthan

prescriptive,guide.

What Are Your Engagement Goals?Answeringthisquestionwillhelpyoushapethestructure

oftheengagementprocessandwillimpacteverythingfrom

resourceallocationtoprogramadvertising.Itishelpfulto

identifywhatengagementneedsthegovernmententity

faces,andhow,ifatall,ane-petitionsystemmayaddress

thoseneeds.Putsimply,whye-petitions?

Ourresearchindicatesgovernmentsembracee-petitions

topursueavarietyofgoals.However,ineachcase,the

overarchingobjectiveistodevelopagreaterrelationship

withcitizens.Othergoalsmayinclude:

• CrEaTE a CITIzEn fEEDbaCK lOOP.Manygovernmentsare

lookingforawaytodeveloptwo-waymodesofcommunication

withcitizens.E-petitionsallowcitizenstosharetheirviews,

whilealsoallowingthegovernmenttorespondand,atleast

potentially,beginamoreparticipatorydialoguearoundpolicy-

making.6

• EnablE CITIzEn buy-In. Whencitizensareformallyinvolvedin

governmentdecision-making,theyaremorelikelytoacceptits

outcomes.AmericaSpeaks’townmeetingworkshowsthateven

whenaparticipantdisagreeswiththeoutcomeofaprocess,the

participantismorelikelytoaccepttheoutcomeiftheyfeelthat

theirvoicehasbeenheardinthedecision-makingprocess.7

• TraCK IssuE InTErEsT GEOGraPHICally.E-petitionsallow

thegovernmenttotrackpetitionsubmissionandsignageby

geographiclocation,meaningthatinterestinissuescanbe

mappedgeographicallyandmanagedaccordingly.

• ManaGE HIGHly POlarIzED IssuEs.Thee-petitionprocess

createsasafespacefordifferencestobeairedbycreating

amechanismthroughwhichallsidesofanissuecangather

support.Becauseoftheterms-of-userequirementsthatareput

inplace,governmentscanensurethatpetitionsuseaciviltone.

Additionally,e-petitionsallowthegovernmententitytoexplain

itsreasoningforpolicypositionstothosewhoaremostengaged

onanissue.

• sPEaK DIrECTly TO THE PublIC.Usingane-petitionprocess

allowsgovernmentstoresponddirectlytothoseconcerned

aboutanissuewithouthavingtousethemediaasan

intermediary.

• IDEnTIfy COMMunITIEs Of suPPOrT fOr IssuEs.

E-petitionsenablethegoverningbodytoidentifycommunities

ofsupportforissuesandallowforthecreationofacontinuing

dialoguewithsupportersofthoseissues.

• sTrEaMlInE ExIsTInG PETITIOn PrOCEssEs. While

e-petitionsdonotreplaceexistingpaperpetitionprocesses,

3

theyencouragepetitionsigningtooccurinamoretransparent,

responsive,andstreamlinedprocess.Forexample,Queensland,

Australia,hasuseditse-petitionplatformasahubforbothpaper

andelectronicpetitions.Doingsohasbroughttransparencyto

thepaperpetitionprocessthroughtheonlinepostingofpaper

petitionresponses.8

• InCrEasE PublIC unDErsTanDInG Of GOvErnMEnT

PrOCEss. Thee-petitionprocesscanprovidecitizensan

opportunitytogetacloserlookathowtheirgovernmentworks

andeducatethemaboutthekindsofissuesthegovernment

workson.

• EsTablIsH CulTurE Of CITIzEn InvOlvEMEnT. Byoffering

amechanismforcitizenviews,governmentswhosponsor

substantivee-petitionprocessessendamessagethattheyare

interestedinhavingcitizensshapethegovernmentagenda.

• EnGaGE aCrOss PHysICal barrIErs.Forcommunities

thatcoveralargegeographicarea,e-democracytoolssuchas

e-petitionscanhelpbridgephysicalbarriersandengagecitizens

whomaynotliveclosetogovernment.Arecentstudysuggests

thatU.S.statecapitalsthatareremovedfrommajorpopulation

centersmaycontributetoperceptionsofcorruption.9Insuch

cases,e-democracymechanismsareusefultoolsforengaging

citizensintheworkofgovernmentdespitegeographicdistance.

Whendevelopingyourgoals,consideriftheycanbeaccomplishedthroughane-petitionsystemaloneorif

theywillbebetterreachedthroughalargere-democracy

program.Forexample,iftheprimarygoalistoincrease

publicunderstandingofgovernmentdecision-making,

ane-petitionsystemalonemaybeinsufficient.The

combinationofane-petitionsystem,webcastsofpublic

meetings,andmoreaccessibledescriptionsofthedecision-

makingprocessmightbettermeetthisgoal.Eachofthe

casesconsideredinthisguideimplementede-petition

systemsaspartoflargerparticipatoryplansorprojects.

Establishinggoalswillhelpdeterminethestructureof,andoutreachstrategyfor,thee-petitionsystem.Inaddition

to settingengagement-orientedgoals,itisimportantto

recognizetheimpactthatsuchaprojectwillhaveonthe

governingbodyitself.Forexample,whatkindsofresources

canbecommittedtotheproject?Whattypeofrelationship

doesthegovernmentwanttohavewiththepublic?These

goalswillguideyourdecision-makinggoingforward.

Itmayalsobeusefultopilotane-petitionsystemforaperiodoftimeasawayofclarifyingandrefiningwhatengagement goalswillreallymatterforyourjurisdiction.Manyoftheexistinge-petitionplatformsbeganastrialprograms,whichwerethenmodifiedtobestsuitthecommunity’sneeds.InthecaseofBristol,England,atrialperiodhelpededucatethecommunityandtheelectedofficialsinthee-petitionprocessandgavethecityanopportunitytomodifytheplatform’sfeaturesasitdeveloped.10Itisalsoimportanttoconsiderotherfactorsthatmayinfluenceyourdecisionsinthisarena:Aretherepre-existingengagementactivitieswithwhiche-petitionsshouldbeintegrated?Isthereahistoryofnegativerelationshipsbetweenthegovernmentandcertaingroups?Aretherecommunityneeds(e.g.languagetranslation)thatneedtobeaddressedforthee-petitionprogramtoreachitsgoals?

We recommend the use of a trial period to test the technical platform itself and

the community response to it, and to help educate decision-makers about the value of

e-petition systems.

4

How Will E-Petitions Connect to Decision-Making?Thestructureofe-petitionprocessesmatters.Itisimportant

todeterminehowe-petitionswillconnectwithformal

decision-making,becausethenatureofthatconnectionwill

determinethevalueofthee-petitionsystemtocitizensand

thegoverningbody.Howthesystemconnectstodecision-

makingisheavilydependentonthebranchofgovernment

implementinge-petitions.

Management and Dissemination of E-Petitions

Fore-petitionsystemsthatresidewithintheexecutive

branch,itisnecessarytodeterminewhomcitizensare

abletopetitionandfromwhomtheycanexpecttoreceive

responses.Canpetitionsonlybedirectedtowardthemayor,

orcantheyalsobedirectedtowardindividualdepartment

oragencyheads?Whoisresponsibleforrespondingto

thepetition?Ifallpetitionsaresubmittedtothechief

executive,whodirectsthepetitiontothecorrectresponder

ordecideswhoisbestsuitedtorespondtoapetition?Who

managesthee-petitionprocess?InthecaseoftheWhite

Housee-petitionplatform,WethePeople,ateamofpolicy

advisorsmeetstodeterminewhoisbestsuitedtorespond

toaspecificpetition.Whilethepetitionsmaybedirectedat

thePresident,herarelyanswersthemdirectly.11

Similarissuesariseforthelegislativebranch.Are

petitionssubmittedtotheentirecouncilortoindividual

councilors?Theanswermaydependonwhetherthe

systemisbeingmanagedbythecouncilclerkorindividual

councilors’offices.Thelegislativebranchhasanadditional

considerationindeterminingtheformofanofficial

petitionresponse.Doesthecouncilguaranteepetitioners

adiscussionoftheissue?Dopetitionersreceiveawritten

statementfromaspecificcouncilororanoticeofwhen

afloordebateontheissuewillbeheld?Thesetypesof

questionsneedtobeaddressedtodeterminewhatcitizen

petitionerscanexpectfromthee-petitionprocess.For

example,inQueensland,theClerkofParliamentoversees

bothpaperandelectronicpetitionsubmissionandisalso

responsibleforensuringthatthegovernmentresponseis

issuedandmadeavailabletothepublic.12

Signature Threshold

Inadditiontodeterminingarealisticresponsetime,

e-petitionadministratorsmaychoosetoestablisha

signaturethresholdforsuccessfulpetitions.Variousfactors

shouldbeconsideredwhenselectingathresholdnumber.

• Whathumanresourceconstraintswillthee-petitionsystem

have?Ifthethresholdforsignaturesisverylowandmany

petitionsaresuccessful,manyhoursofstafftimewillbeneeded

toshepherdthee-petitionsthroughthegovernment.

• Whatisthesizeofthepopulationthatthegovernmentserves?If

acityhas400,000residents,thena100,000-signaturethreshold

wouldbetoohighforanypetitionstosucceed.

Isthereathresholdforexistingpaperpetitionprocesses?You

maywanttoconsiderusingthesamenumberforpaperand

e-petitionstoensurethatthosewhouseonemediumarenot

negativelyimpacted.

• Thethresholdcanbeflexible.Thesignaturethresholdislikely

tochangeasthesystemgrowsanddevelops.Aslongasitis

publiclystatedthatthethresholdnumbermaychange,itis

When using a signature threshold, we recommend choosing a number that

more accurately represents the politically engaged portion of the population. While

the exact number will vary depending on the community, it may be useful to begin with

5-10% of active voters.

5

acceptabletomodifythenumberastheneedsofthee-petition

systemchange.InthecaseofWethePeople,theWhiteHouse

e-petitionplatform,thethresholdhaschangeddramatically,

goingfrom5,000to25,000to100,000.Asthee-petition

platformgainedusers,thethresholdwasraisedtoensurethat

onlythemostpopularpetitionsweresuccessful.However,the

changestothesignaturethresholdwerecriticizedaslimiting

citizenaccess.

Thesignaturethresholdwillvarydependingonthecommunity

inwhichane-petitionsystemisimplemented.Whathas

workedforonecommunitymaynotworkforanother.

Examplesofhowothergovernmentshavenavigatedthese

issuesareexploredinthecasestudiesthatfollow.

Official response

Thoseimplementinge-petitions,eitherintheexecutiveor

legislativebranch,willhavetodeterminewhatformtheofficial

responsewilltake,howtheresponsewillbeissued,andan

appropriatetimeframefortheresponse.Settingatimeframe

foraguaranteedresponseisanimportantcomponentofthe

e-petitionprocessandshouldnotbeoverlooked.Centraltothe

premiseofe-petitionsisthenotionthattimelygovernment

responsedemonstratesrespectforcitizens,andthusimproves

thecredibilityofthee-petitionsystem.Ifthee-petitionsite

makesastatedguaranteethataresponsewillbeissuedwithin

60days,afailuretodosowillunderminethevalidityofthe

governmentresponseandthetrustworthinessofthesystem

atlarge.Somegovernmentsmaybetemptedtoavoidthis

issuebynotsettingaguaranteedresponsetime,whichis

alsoproblematic.Ifpetitionersarenotguaranteedatimely

response,theymayfeelthatthee-petitionsystemisnota

seriousattempttocommunicatewithcitizensandunderstand

theirconcerns.Forinstance,theWhiteHousedoesnothave

aresponsetimeguarantee,andithasreceivedcriticismfor

itsuntimelyresponsestoe-petitions,whichmaytakemany

months.13

Educating Decision-Makers

Itisalsoimportantthatthedecision-makersorelectedofficials

onthereceivingendofthee-petitionsystemareeducated

aboutthepetitionsystemandhowitworks.Ifofficialsare

engagedwiththee-petitionprocess,theyaremorelikelyto

takepetitionsseriouslyandappreciatethevalueofcitizen

views.Insomecases,suchasinBristol,electedofficialsare

encouragedtousethee-petitionsystemthemselvesasa

meanstoorganizeandenergizethepublicaroundtheirpolicy

ideas.Doingsoencouragesgrassrootsorganizingamong

electedofficialsandpromotesgreaterengagementbetween

electedofficialsandthepublic.14

As such, we recommend that e-petition system administrators avoid making frequent changes to the signature threshold and supply

justification for any changes made to the signature threshold.

Even if elected officials are not formally

encouraged to use the e-petition system, we recommend that decision-makers receive a thorough introduction to the platform to encourage its use and to help spread

institutional acceptance of the platform.

We recommend that e-petition systems utilize some form of response time guarantee. The

appropriate time will vary across petition systems and may be dependent on the size of the

population, the number of petitions received, and the staff time available for managing the

e-petition system. The time guarantee will provide a sense of accountability for citizen petitioners, while also creating a petition

response structure that treats all e-petitions equally.

6

How Will The Citizen-Government Interaction Be Managed?Citizensparticipateinane-petitionsystembecausethey

areinterestedinexpressingtheirviewsandpotentially

impactinggovernmentdecision-making.Assuch,itis

importantforthegovernmentsponsortosetrealistic

expectationsamongcitizenpetitionersandaccurately

representthee-petitionprocessandoutcomes.Although

notintendedtobeexhaustive,thelistbelowincludesthe

mostcommonwaysgovernmentshavecommunicatedwhat

citizenscanexpectthroughthee-petitionsystemstheyuse:

fOrMal DEsCrIPTIOn Of E-PETITIOn PrOCEss anD

GOvErnMEnT GuaranTEEs. Mostpetitionerswillform

baselineexpectationsfromthedescriptionoftheprocessthat

thesponsoringgovernmentprovidesonthee-petitionwebsite.

Thisincludesanyguaranteesabouttimelyresponse,manner

ofresponse,aswellasanyformalsubmissionrequirements

andprocedures.Ifthesefundamentaldescriptionsareclear,

realistic,andconsistent,thepetitionerwillhaveabettersense

ofwhattheyshouldexpectfromtheire-petitionexperience.

However,iftheseguaranteesarenotmet,petitionerfaithin

thesystemislikelytobeundermined.

ClEar anD aCCEssIblE TErMs Of usE anD PrIvaCy

POlICIEs. Inadditiontoformalproceduralrules,the

e-petitionplatformtermsofuseandprivacypolicyshould

beeasytounderstandandaccessiblefrommultiple

pointsonthewebsite.E-petitionssometimesrequirethat

signatoriesprovideinformationaboutthemselves,soit

isimportanttoclearlystatewhohasaccesstopersonal

information,whattheinformationwillbeusedfor,andwhat

willhappentotheinformationinthefuture.

aDvErTIsInG THE E-PETITIOn PlaTfOrM.Many

e-petitionplatformsareadvertisedtogeneratecommunity

interestandinvolvement.Whileadvertisingcanbeauseful

waytospreadthewordaboutthesystem,itisimportant

tomakesurethattheexpectationsbeingconveyedare

realistic.Forexample,ataglinelike“Shareyouropinion”

maybemorerealisticthan“Changeyourgovernment.”As

theplatformages,therearelikelytobesomesuccessful

petitionsthatdoimpactpolicy.Whenadvertisingthese

successfulpetitions,donotimplythatallpetitionsarelikely

toinfluencedecision-makinginasimilarway.Forexample,

thetaglinefortheWhiteHouse’sWethePeopleplatform

is“Yourvoiceinourgovernment,”whichsuggeststhat

theplatformisamechanismforcitizenagency,butnot

necessarilyimpact.15

We recommend that your e-petition system

create an easy-to-understand formal process. These formal rules should be available on the

site and should be accompanied by some sort of step-by-step guide or informational content piece

that outlines the process of creating a petition, signing a petition, and what petitioners can

expect from the e-petition process. Important site rules or restrictions should also be included. This information can be presented through multiple media, including downloadable guides, video

tutorials, or infographics, among others.

We recommend that governments advertise the

site, especially when launched, through formal means, such as press releases, social media platforms, and government websites. As the e-petition system develops, it is likely to start advertising itself through the social sharing of

petitions. Most petition systems place the burden of promoting individual petitions on their creators,

thus enabling promotion of the system through participant word of mouth.

7

lEvEraGInG MEDIa COvEraGE Of THE PlaTfOrM. The

mediaislikelytocoverthereleaseoftheplatform,aswell

asinterestingorcontroversialpetitions.Whileyoucannot

controlmediacoverageoftheplatform,itcanbeleveraged

tohelpspreadnewsaboutthesystemandtohighlight

itscapabilities.Forexample,aparticularlycontroversial

petitioninBristolaboutthegraffitiartistBanksydrewalot

ofmediaattentiontoBristol’se-petitionplatform.Bristol

seizedtheopportunitytoadvertisethesiteandresponded

byfeaturingthecontroversialpetitionandengagingwiththe

mediaabouttheplatform.16

usEr ExPErIEnCE On sITE.Theinteractionbetweencitizensandgovernmentisalsomoderatedthrough

theuserexperienceonthesiteitself.Makingtheuser

interfacesimpleandnavigable,aswellasprovidingcontact

information,canmakethetransitiontoe-petitioning

simplerformanycitizens.WethePeople,theWhiteHouse

e-petitionplatform,usesvideotutorialsandgraphicsto

helpguidepeoplethroughthesite.Inaddition,thesite’s

searchfunctionalityandpetitioncategorizationmakeit

easytonavigatethroughexistingpetitionsandtofindnew

petitions.

What Are The Technical Matters you Must Consider? Technologicaldecisionsarecoretoanye-petitionsystem.

Whileeachgovernment’stechnicalneedsandrequirements

willdiffer,thefollowingstepsareintendedtoserveasaguide

onarangeoftechnologicalevaluationandimplementation

issues.

DETErMInInG THE aPPrOPrIaTE TECHnOlOGy.When

choosingtherightunderlyingtechnology,youfacethree

generaloptions:takingopen-sourcecodefromanexisting

e-petitionsite,developingthetechnologyfromscratch,or

usingapublice-petitionsite.

Open-source

Most,ifnotall,existinggovernment-sponsorede-petition

systemsareopen-source,meaningthattheirunderlying

codecanbecopiedandusedelsewhereforfree.Developing

ane-petitionsitefromopen-sourcecodeintroducesa

specificsetofconsiderations.Thecodeisfreetotake,

andtheremayalsobeacommunityofdeveloperswho

workwiththecoderegularlytomakemodificationsand

improvements.Whencomparingdifferentopen-source

platforms,youmaywanttoseehowactivethecommunity

ofdevelopersisaroundtheplatform.Ifmanypeopleare

workingonit,itgenerallymeansthattherewillbeagroup

ofpeoplewhocanhelpaddressissuesonthesiteandwho

canserveasresourcesforwebsiteupdates.Youalsowant

tolookforthesitefeaturesthataremostimportanttoyou.

Makesurethatthosefeaturesareavailableintheopen-

sourceversionoftheplatform,orthatyourdevelopercan

addthemaftertheplatformhasbeencreated.

We recommend that e-petition site designers

consider the user experience when designing e-petition platforms. The ease of finding and signing petitions is central to the success of any e-petition platform. It may be useful to

use citizen focus groups or something similar (perhaps with government staff) to test the user experience of the site before the site is

launched.

8

Developing from scratch

Ifyouhavethetechnicalcapacityorareunabletofindan

open-sourceoptionthatfitsyourneeds,youmayconsider

buildingtheplatformfromscratch.Thisrequiresalotofin-

housedevelopmentexpertiseortheabilitytohireoutside

developers.Wewouldnotrecommendthispathunlessyou

havealotofavailableresourcesorhavespecificneedsthat

aren’tmetinanexistingplatformorthatcannotbeadded.

Ifyouchoosetobuilditindependently,youcanopen-source

thecodefortheplatformonceitiscomplete.Forexample,

theWhiteHousedevelopedWethePeopleindependently

andthenopen-sourcedthecodetomaketheplatform

availabletoothers.

Public E-Petition sites

Thereareaplethoraofpublice-petitionsitesthatare

unaffiliatedwithagovernmentbody.Thesesitesdonot

allowback-endgovernmentcontrolofthepetitionsite,

butdoserveasplatformsforcitizenstocreateandsign

petitions.Itmaybepossibleforagovernmenttoselecta

pre-existingpublicpetitionsiteandworkwiththesiteto

encouragecitizenstosubmitpetitionstothegovernment

throughthepublicsite.Someofthesepublice-petition

sites17onlyprovidebasicpetitionfunctionality,whileothers

integratesocialnetworkingtools18toallowpetitionersto

interactanddooutreacharoundtheirpetitions.Thesemore

sociale-petitionsiteshelpbuildcommunitiesofpolitically

engagedcitizens.However,usingapublicpetitionsitewill

introduceissuesrelatedtodataownership,portability,

andprivacy.Additionally,theremaybecomplications

inaccessingemailaddressesandacquiringsignatory

information.

Choosing The Right System

Developingasuccessfule-petitionplatformwillrequirethat

thesponsoringgovernmentselectanappropriatesystem,

whichleadstoaquestion:Whatshouldyoulookforin

comparingdifferentsystems?

EasE Of InsTallaTIOn anD MaInTEnanCE.Whilethis

willbedependentonthecapacityofwhatevertechnology

andtechnicalstaffarebeingusedforimplementation,itis

animportantconsiderationfromacostandmanagement

perspective.

PETITIOnEr InTErfaCE.Discussionofthepetitioner

interfaceshouldcenterontheeaseofuseandthe

availabilityoftoolsusefultocitizenpetitioners.Simplyput,

howeasyisittostart,sign,orfindapetition?Thefollowing

sitefeaturesshouldbeconsidered.

• ranKED lIsTs:Onasitewheretheremaybealargevolume

ofcontent,suchasactivee-petitionsorresponses,itishelpful

toprovideseveralwaysforpetitionstobelistedandsearched.

Somecommonlyusedrankedlistsinclude:popularity,most

recent,orarandomselection.Therankedlistsavailabletosite

visitorsareimportantbecausethepetitionspresentedtothe

mostusersarelikelytoreceivethemostsignatures.Toavoid

appearingasifthesitefavorscertainpetitions,makesure

thatthereisanexplanationforthelistingofpetitions,suchas

chronologicalorder,andthatallactivepetitionscanbeeasily

accessed.

• sEarCH funCTIOnalITy: Ifthesiteincludesasearchfeature,

howdoesitwork?Doesitsearchthefulltextofpetitions,

asetofkeywords(chosenbyeitherthepetitionerorsite

administrator),ortags?

• DuPlICaTE PETITIOns:Similarly,ifsomeonecreatesanew

petitionandasimilarpetitionisalreadyactive,isthepetitioner

notifiedandofferedtheopportunitytosigntheexistingpetition

insteadofcreatinganewone?

9

Manyoftheseconsiderationswillvarydependingonthe

numberofactivepetitionsonthesite,howmanyvisitors

thesitereceives,andthewaythesiteisbeingused,allofwhichmaychangeovertime.Forexample,ifpetitioncreatorsaredrivingsignatoriesdirectlytospecificpetitions,theissuesaroundpetitionlistsmaybeminimized.However,manyuserswillbebroughttothesitebyaspecificpetitionandmaylookatotherpetitionswhileonthesite,making

thelistingfunctionalityveryimportant.

baCK-EnD InTErfaCE. Theback-endinterfaceusedby

systemmanagersrunsparalleltothepetitionerinterface.

Howeasyisittouseandunderstand?Howwillitfitinwithinternalworkflow?Forexample,willpetitionshavetobecopiedandpastedintoanothersystemtobedistributedtotherespondingofficialsor,doesthee-petitionsystemallowpetitionstobeforwardedandtracked?Similarly,canresponsesbesenttopetitionersthroughthee-petitionplatform,integratedintoanexistingemailclient,ordotheemailaddressesneedtobeexportedandthensentusingaseparateemailprogram?Howeasyisitforplatform

administratorstoarchiveandpostpetitionresponses?

TaGs anD CaTEGOrIzaTIOn. Howdopetitionsget

categorizedtominimizethenumberofsimilarpetitionsthat

enterthesystem?InthecaseofWethePeople,petitioncreatorschoosetagsandcategoriesfortheirpetition.Thesetagsarethensearchable,makingpetitionseasiertosortandfind.Additionally,eachpetitionmustfallintoaspecificissuecategory,whichenablessearchingpetitionsbyissuearea.19

InTEraCTIvE fEaTurEs. Inadditiontothebasicfeatures

ofane-petitionsite,interactivefeaturescanbeadded

to create greatercitizeninteractionandengagement:forexample,enablingusercommentsonpetitions,theoptiontouploadadditionalinformation(documents,photos,links)topetitions,anduserprofilestoallowsignatoriestointeractwithoneanotherandformgroups.Whilethesefeaturesenablegreaterengagementandconnectivityamongusers,theycancreatemoreback-endmanagementconcernsforsystemadministrators.Additionally,somegovernmentsmaynotfeelcomfortableusingtheirofficialwebsitesas

platformsforissueoradvocacygroupstoformandconnect.

usEr vErIfICaTIOn. Whilemanye-petitionplatforms

attempttoverifywhositeusersarethroughemail,we

havenotseenasystemthatisabletogenuinelyverifythatusersaretellingthetruthabouttheiridentities.Theuseofemailverificationmayhelptocombate-petitionfraudthroughmassautomaticsignatures,butitdoesnotaddresstheuseofmultipleemailaccountsbythesameuserorhelpdeterminetheidentityoftheuser.Giventhatthetechnologyisnotabletopreventallfraud,itmaybeusefultodevelopapenaltyforfraudulentuseofthesystemandoutlineitsconsequencesonthewebsite.InQueensland,e-petitionfraudcanresultinafine,andifthefinegoesunpaid,itcanleadtojailtime.20

sTaffInG anD rEsOurCEs. Priortoresearchingallofthepossibletechnicalpossibilities,itisimportanttodoa

cursoryexaminationofyourcommitmentandcapacityfor

e-petitionimplementation.

• WHO WIll bE rEsPOnsIblE fOr IMPlEMEnTInG THE

sysTEM?IfthereisaninternalITteam,theymayhavethe

abilitytoinstallandconfigurethee-petitionsystem.Ifyouhave

awebsite,whoevermaintainsyourwebsitemaybeabletodo

this.However,youalsomayneedtoidentifyanewexternal

consultantorvendorfortheimplementation.

• WHO WIll bE rEsPOnsIblE fOr TECHnICal

ManaGEMEnT Of THE sysTEM? Similarly,youwillneedto

determinewhowillberesponsibleformaintainingthesystem

10

onceitisupandrunning.Thiswillincludetroubleshooting

problemsthatmayariseandensuringsmoothoperationofthe

system.

• WHaT Is yOur buDGET fOr TECHnICal IMPlEMEnTaTIOn

anD MaInTEnanCE?Knowingyourbudgetaheadoftimewill

helpfocusyoureffortsonfindingtherightsystem.

• WHaT Is yOur sTaff Or buDGET fOr subsTanTIvE

TraInInG anD OnGOInG ManaGEMEnT Of THE sysTEM?

Beingrealisticabouttheamountofstaffandbudgetthatyou

haveavailablefortheprojectwillhelpfacilitateitssuccess.If

yourgovernmentalreadyreceivespaperpetitions,itisidealthat

thesameteamprocessese-petitionsand,ifpossible,thatboth

typesofpetitionsmovethroughthesameinternalprocess.

buIlDInG a TEaM.E-petitionsystemscanbemanagedbyonepersonormany,andincaseswhereseveralpeoplewill

be involvedindesigningandimplementingthesystem,itis

importanttobuildateamthatwillmakeappropriatesoftware

choices.

• WHO Is On THE TEaM?

ͳ TECh TEAM.IfthereisanexistingITteamthatwillbedoingtheinstallationandmaintenanceofthee-petition

systemorawebconsultantthatisalreadyworkingwiththe

governmentbody,theyneedtobeincludedonthisteam.

Theirfamiliaritywithdifferenttechnologieswillhelptoguide

thedecisionofwhatsoftwareismostappropriateforyour

specificsituation.

ͳ ManaGEMEnT sTaff.Whowillberesponsibleformanagingthesystemandrespondingtopetitionsonceitis

upandrunning?Involvingplatformadministratorsearlyin

theplanningprocesswillallowthemtoprovidefeedback

ontheinterfaceandairanyconcernstheymayhave.This

willnotonlyeasethetraining,butalsogivethemasenseof

ownershipinthesystem,thusimprovingthelikelihoodofits

success.

DaTa COnCErns WITH ExTErnal vEnDOrs anD HOsTInG. Forgovernmentsthatuseoutsidevendorsto

runtheire-petitionsystem,itisimportanttobereadyto

addressdataownershipandprivacyissuesthatmayarise.

• rETaIn OWnErsHIP.Thetermsofserviceonsomesites

claimownershipofthedatathatisenteredintothem.Assuch,

governmentsponsorsofe-petitionsitesshouldensurethat

anexternalvendororconsultantdoesnotownthedatabeing

collected.Toavoidtheissue,includegovernmentownership

ofsitecontentaspartofanyvendorcontract.Ifyouareusing

anexternale-petitionssite,youmayneedtohaveyourlegal

departmentverifythatitstermsofservicedonotprecludeyou,

asagovernmententity,fromusingtheirservice.

• rETaIn aCCEss.Whenanexternalvendorisused,makesurea

planisinplaceshouldthegovernmentdecidetoswitchvendors

orifthecontractorgoesoutofbusiness.Additionally,makesure

thatyouareabletoretrievecollecteddata.Itmaybeusefulto

setuparegularbackupservicetoensurecontinuedaccessto

sitedata.

• POrTabIlITy.Ifvendorsorplatformsneedtobechanged,how

easyisittomovethedatafromtheprevioussystemtoanew

one?Addressingthisissuewillbeeasierifmultiplevendors

canhostthee-petitionsystemorifdatacanbebackedupand

accessedexternallyfromaproprietaryvendor.

How Will The Outcomes of The E-Petition system be Evaluated?Inthinkingaboutthedevelopmentofane-petition

system,itishelpfultoconsiderthemetricsthatwillbe

usedtoevaluatetheprogram.Thegoalslaidoutinthe

beginningoftheplanningprocesscanbeusedasaguidefor

designingtheevaluationprocess.Whatmetricsareuseful

inmeasuringyourspecifice-petitiongoals?21Whilesome

metricswillbespecifictothegovernmentcontext,other

metricscanbeusedinmanye-petitionsystemevaluations.

11

We recommend that you utilize some kind of analytics tool, such as Google Analytics,

to monitor the e-petition site usage and use regular site surveys to gather feedback from users. Additionally, metrics and evaluations should be made public and accessible as a means of showing the public how well you

are meeting your engagement goals. It is also useful to develop an evaluation plan, including a schedule, to ensure recurring measurement and

evaluation.

USAGE DATA.Howmanypetitionsweresubmitted?How

manypetitionscrossedthesignaturethreshold?Howmany

signatureshavebeenlogged?Howmanyuniquevisitors?

Theseareafewexamplesoftheusage-relatedquestions,

whichareusefultodeterminethedepthandbreadthof

engagementwiththee-petitionsystem.Itishelpfultoknow

notonlyhowmanypeopleareusingthesystem,butalso

howpeopleareusingitandhowoftentheyreturn.This

datashouldbeavailablethroughanalyticsmonitoringofthe

e-petitionsite.

IMPACT METRIC.Animpactmetricismuchmoresubjective

thanusagedatabutcanprovidevaluablefeedbackon

howcitizensfeelaboutthee-petitionsystem.Whichparts

ofthesystemareworking?Whicharen’t?Forexample,

sendinganautomaticsurveyafterindividualshavesigned

apetitionorreceivedaresponseprovidesthegovernment

withanopportunitytoaskpetitionersquestionsabouthow

theyfeltabouttheexperienceoriftheywoulddoitagain.

Additionally,surveyscanalsobegiventodecision-makers

toestablishwhetherthee-petitionsystemhasimpacted

theirpolicy-makingprocessortheirunderstandingofcitizen

concerns.TheWhiteHouse,Bristol,andQueenslandhaveall

usedsurveysatsomepointtohelpevaluatetheirrespective

e-petitionprograms.

sysTEM rElIabIlITy anD rEsPOnsE TIME. Howwell

dothetechnicalcomponentsofthee-petitionplatform

work?Howoftendoesthesitegodown?Aretherecertain

pageswherepetitionerslogalotofcomplaintsorleavethe

site?Examiningthesetechnicalcomponentsofthee-petition

processcanimprovetheuserexperienceandincreasethe

reliabilityofthesystem.Itisalsousefultomaintainarecordof

howlongittakestorespondtopetitionsandhowoftenyou

failtomeetanystatedtimelinessguarantees.Keepingtrack

ofthisdatahelpstokeepthegovernmentaccountableforthe

timelinessguaranteesthatitmakestocitizenpetitioners.

ManaGEMEnT anD IMPlEMEnTaTIOn. Howhasthe

systembeenmanaged?Aresystemadministratorsfluent

andefficientinsystemmanagement?Dotheyhavetheright

skillstoperformtheirduties?Whatarethecosts(interms

ofmoneyandtime)torunthee-petitionprogram?Asking

thesetypesofquestionswillhelpevaluatehowthesystem

isbeingmanagedinternallyandtheimpactofe-petitionson

internalresources.

Hopefully,thisdiscussionhasbetterpreparedyoutoanswer

someofthequestionsyouwillfaceinyoure-petitionsystem

implementation.Thefollowingcasestudiesareintendedto

showyouhowothergovernmentshavenavigatedthrough

theirowne-petitionimplementationsandprovideinsight

intopotentialobstaclesandopportunities.

12

CASE STUDY:

We the People – United States

Background

TheObamaAdministrationlaunchedthe“WethePeople”e-petitionwebsitetoenableAmericanstosharetheirviewswith

theexecutivebranch.Asatoolfortheentirecountry,WethePeopleservesover300millionpeople.22

E-Petitions in the united states

TherighttopetitiongovernmentisenshrinedintheFirstAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitution,whichstatesthatpeople

havearightto“petitionGovernmentforaredressofgrievances.”Whiletherighttopetitionwasonceusedforthepersonal

redressofgrievances,itisnowprimarilyusedbygroupsofcitizenswhowanttoexpresstheirviewsordemandaspecific

actiononaparticularissue.Ithasbeenformallyestablishedthatthoughthereisarighttopetition,thereisnodefinedright

ofreceivingagovernmentresponse.23

WhenPresidentObamatookofficein2009,heissuedaMemorandumonTransparencyandOpenGovernment,callingon

theExecutiveBranchanditsagenciestobemoretransparent,participatory,andcollaborative.InSeptember2011,President

ObamaintroducedtheU.S.OpenGovernmentPartnershipNationalActionPlan,24outliningtheactionstepstofostergreater

transparency,participation,andcollaborationingovernmentdecision-making.25Thecreationofane-petitionplatformwas

oneof26specificcommitmentsinthisplan.26

SoonafterthereleaseoftheNationalActionPlan,theObamaAdministrationlaunchedtheWethePeoplee-petition

website.ThesitenotonlyallowedpeopletopetitiontheWhiteHouse,butalsoguaranteedthatifaspecifiednumberof

peoplesignedapetitionwithin30days,theWhiteHousewouldissuearesponse.Usageofthesitehasgrownsteadily,and

thenumberofsiteusersdoubledfollowingthe2012election,bringingthetotalnumberofsiteuserstoover7million.27 As

ofMarch2013,theWethePeoplesitehadreceivedmorethan178,000petitions28andhadissuedover150responses.29The

signaturethresholdtotriggeraWhiteHouseresponsehaschangedovertime.Whentheplatformlaunched,thethreshold

was5,000,butinJanuary2013itwaschangedto100,000.30

TheWethePeoplee-petitionsitewasinfluencedbypre-existinge-petitionplatforms,includingtheUnitedKingdom’sHouse

ofCommonse-petitionsite(http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/).31TheWhiteHousesiteisthefirste-petitionsitecreatedby

theU.S.governmentandistheonlyexampleofe-petitioningintheUnitedStatesthatwehavefound.Thoughthesite

wasinfluencedbyinternationale-petitionplatforms,ateamofWhiteHousedevelopersbuiltit.32Inthesummerof2012,

theWhiteHouseopen-sourcedthecodeforWethePeople,makingtheplatformavailableforusebyothergovernments,

organizations,andindividuals.33

13

Key Decision Areas for We The People - United States

Determining Engagement Goals

Asapresidentialcandidatein2008,BarackObamavowedtoimplementnewaccountabilitytransparencymeasures.34To

keephiscampaignpromise,heannouncedhisMemorandumonTransparencyandOpenGovernmentonhisfirstdayin

office.Thememohighlightedincreasedpublicparticipationasapathtogovernmentopenness,andisdescribedonthe

WhiteHousewebsiteas“empoweringthepublic–throughgreateropennessandnewtechnologies–toinfluencethe

decisionsthataffecttheirlives.”35Whilee-petitionswerenottheonlyinitiativelaunchedbytheObamaAdministrationto

meetthisgoal,theyembodythespiritofopennessthroughtechnologicalinnovation.

14

Duetothelonghistoryofpetitionsandthepublic’sfamiliaritywiththemechanism,government-sponsorede-petitioning

isanaccessibleparticipationtoolthatcanprovideanopportunityforthegovernmenttoengageinadialoguewithcitizens

aboutissuesthatareimportanttothem.AccordingtotheWethePeoplewebsite,theplatform“helpstheWhiteHouse

understandtheviewsoftheAmericanpeopleandhaveafocusedandcivilconversationwiththem.”36TheWethePeople

platformprovidedanavenuefortheObamaAdministrationtomeetitspubliccommitmentstoparticipation.E-petitions,as

partoftheObamaAdministration’slargergovernmentopennessinitiative,werepositionedasameansforthepublic’svoice

tobeheard,incontrasttotheperceivedWashingtoncultureofsecrecyandspecialinterests.Thetaglineforthee-petition

platformis“yourvoiceingovernment,”suggestingthatindividualslackedapropervoicepriortotheintroductionofthe

platform.37

Connecting E-Petitions to Decision-Making

TheWethePeopleplatformishousedwithintheexecutivebranch;petitionssentthroughtheplatformcanonlybedirected

attheWhiteHouseorexecutivebranchagencies.Toparticipateonthesiteandcreateorsignpetitions,individualsmust

be13orolderandcreateaWhiteHouse.govaccount,whichasksforanemailaddress,name,andZIPcode.Averification

linkissenttotheemailaddressandtheusermustclicktoverifytheaddress.Whencreatingapetition,usersmustprovide

atitleandselectanissuecategory.Theplatformthensearchesforpetitionsthatalreadymeetthosecriteriaandasksifthe

userwouldprefertosignanexistingpetitioninlieuofcreatinganewpetition.Ifausercontinuestocreateanewpetition,

heorshecanprovideadescription(upto

800characters)andaddkeywordsandtags.

Oncesubmitted,thepetitioncannotbe

editedandthepetitioncreatorisprovided

withalinktotheactivepetitiononthe

WethePeoplesite.However,atthispoint,

thepetitionisnotsearchableonWethe

People.Thepetitioncreatormustsharethe

linkthroughhisorherownnetworks,and

oncethepetitionreaches150signatures,

itbecomessearchableontheWhiteHouse

e-petitionsite.38Thisthresholdinitially

placestheburdenofpublicizingapetition

onthepetitioncreator.

Petitionscanbeviewedbyissuecategory,date,orpopularity,andcanbesearchedusingkeyterms.Potentialsignatories

canviewapetition,seetheinitialsandgenerallocationofothersigners,andviewhowmanymoresignaturesareneeded

15

beforethepetitioncrossesthethresholdforaWhiteHouseresponse.Onceusershavesignedapetition,theyareprompted

tosharethepetitionviasocialmedia.Accordingtotheplatform’srules,ane-petitionhas30daystoreach100,000

signatures.Ifthee-petitiondoesnotreachthesignaturethresholdwithin30days,itisremovedfromthesite.Ifthepetition

crossesthethreshold,itisthenbroughttoaninternalmeetingattheWhiteHouse,wheremembersoftheOfficeofDigital

Strategy,whichoverseesWethePeople,havegatheredrelevantpolicyofficials.Theoutcomeofthismeetingdetermines

whointheexecutivebranchisbestsuitedtorespondtothepetition.39

Whilepetitionsthatcrossthesignaturethresholdareguaranteedaresponse,thereisnostatedtimelineforthatresponse.

Thelackoftimelyresponsehasbeencriticized,andseveralpetitionsthathadcrossedthethresholdwerestillawaiting

responsesmanymonthslaterasofJanuary2013.40Policyofficialswhoseworkisrelatedtothecontentofthepetition

usuallywritetheresponses,whicharethenpostedonthee-petitionsiteandemailedtoallofthepetition’ssignatories.A

singleresponsecanbeissuedformultiplepetitionsonrelatedsubjects.

Whilethetoneofeachresponsevariesaccordingtothewriterandthetopic,petitionresponsesappeartobeprimarilyof

fourtypes:

• Anexplanationofwhattheadministration’spositionisonthetopicinquestion.

• “Arequestforfurtherengagement”41betweenpolicyofficialsandthepetitioncreatororsignatoriesontheissue.

• Astatementonhowpolicyhaschangedasaresultofthepetition.

• AdescriptionofwhytheWhiteHousecannotaddressthepetition.TherearevarioussubjectsthattheWhiteHousewillnotaddress,such

aslawenforcement,procurement,oradjudicatorymatters.42

WhilemostpetitionsdonotcrosstheWethePeoplethreshold,somesuccessfulpetitionshavecreatedasubstantivepolicy

impact.Forexample,petitionsagainstonlinepiracylegislation,suchastheStopOnlinePiracyAct(SOPA)of2012,werepart

ofalargeronlineprotestthatwassuccessfulinbuildingenoughoppositiontostoptheproposedlegislation.Otherpetitions

createdimpactwithoutthebackingofalargermovement.Inthebeginningof2013,apetitionsurfacedrequestingthatcell

phoneunlocking(whichallowscellphonestobeusedondifferentcarriers)belegalized.TheWhiteHouseresponsetothe

petitionwasverysupportive,stating“TheWhiteHouseagreeswiththe114,000+ofyouwhobelievethatconsumersshould

beabletounlocktheircellphoneswithoutriskingcriminalorotherpenalties.”43Theresponsewasverywellreceivedbythe

petitioncreator,whosaid,“AlotofpeoplereactedskepticallywhenIoriginallystartedthepetition,withlotsofcomments

totheeffectof‘petitionsdon’tdoanything.’Theoptimistinmeisreallygladtohaveprovedthemwrong.TheWhite

Housejustshowedthattheyreallydolisten,andthatthey’rewillingtotakeaction.”44Thisresponseshowshowapositive

interactioncangivepetitionersamorepositiveviewofgovernment.

16

Managing the Citizen-Government Interaction

Creatinganonlineportalforcitizen-governmentinteractioninacountryaslargeanddiverseastheUnitedStatesrequires

afairamountofmanagement.TheteambehindWethePeople,theWhiteHouse’sOfficeofDigitalStrategy,managesthe

interactionwiththepubliconmanylevelsandthroughvaryingmeans.Firstandforemost,theinteractionismediatedby

theformalrulessetinplacebythee-petitionplatform.45Theserulesarefullyoutlinedinthesitetermsofparticipationand

mademoreaccessibletothegeneralpublicthroughvideotutorialsandexplanationsthroughoutthesite.Theuseofvideos

andgraphicalrepresentationofthee-petitionprocesshelpsnewandlessexperiencedusersunderstandtheprocess,while

alsomanagingtheirexpectations.

Whiletheintroductoryvideoslayoutthegenerale-petitionprocess,othersitevideoshighlightthepotentialimpactof

e-petitionsonthepolicymakingprocess.Forexample,onevideoexplainingthee-petitionprocessstates,“thereareissues

thatareonlivepetitionsrightnowonWethePeoplethatseniormembersoftheWhiteHousearehavingmeetingsabout

becausetheissuecametousthroughWethePeople.”46Thissuggeststhatpetitionerscanhaveatangibleimpactonpolicy.

Petitionerexpectationsarenotonlymanagedthroughthearticulationofformalrules,butalsothroughthedesignofthe

platformitself.Forexample,apetitioncreatormustselectanissueareaforthepetitionasitisbeingcreated.Suchastep

makesiteasierforthesitetosortandsearchpetitions,butitalsoforcespetitioncreatorstoconformtotheconstraints

ofthesite.Similarly,petitiondescriptionscannotexceed800characters.47Themandatoryaccountcreationalsoservesto

controltheinteractionbetweenusersandthesite.Whiletheinformationisonlyverifiedusinganemaillink,thesiteasks

foridentifyinginformation,suchasanameandzipcode,whichistreatedaspublicinformation.Thetermsofparticipation

alsostatethattheWhiteHousecansendusersemailsrelatedtoWethePeoplegenerally,notonlytothepetitionsthat

theysign.Additionally,theWhiteHousekeepsuserinformationonfile,statingthat“informationwilllikelyberetainedby

theWhiteHouseuntiltheendofthecurrentAdministration,atwhichtimeitwillbetransferredtotheNationalArchives

andRecordsAdministration.”48Thesestructuralcomponentscontrolthewayusersareabletointeractwiththesite,

fundamentallyframingthenatureoftheinteraction.

Inadditiontotheseformalmechanisms,theWhiteHousesetsthetoneoftheplatformbyadvertisingtheplatformelsewhereon

theWhiteHousewebsite.Forexample,theWhiteHouseblogservesasthesourceforinformationaboutthee-petitionplatform

andprocess,includingsitechangesandupdates.ThetonesetbytheWethePeopleblogpostscontinuallysuggeststhatthesite

isevolvingandisstillinitsearlystages,givingreadersasensethattheirexperiencewiththeplatformwillchangeovertime49and

creatingaspacefortheWhiteHousetoadvertisethesuccessesofthesite.50Inaddition,theWethePeopleblogpostsencourage

readerstosharefeedbackaboutthesiteonTwitterorthroughcontactforms.

17

Formanypetitioners,thecitizen-governmentinteractionisjudgedthroughthepetitionresponse(orlackthereof),which

placesimportanceonthecontent,tone,andtimelinessofpetitionresponses.Thesevaryacrosspetitions,butitisworth

notingthattheWhiteHouse’se-petitionprocesshasreceivedcriticismonallthreefronts.Somepetitionresponseshave

beencriticizedforbeingdismissiveorsimplystatinganadministrationpositionwithoutanysubstantiveexplanation,

whileotherresponseshavenotbeenissuedinatimelymanner(oratall).51However,theWhiteHousehaspubliclystated

thatittakesthepetitionprocessseriously,evenrespondingtoapetitionaboutthequalityofpetitionresponseswiththe

title“We’relistening.Seriously.”52Despitethisclaim,thedecision-makingprocessbehindpetitionresponsesisnotvisibly

transparent,eitherintheexplanationofthepetitionprocessorinthereasoningputforthinmanypetitionresponses.

Thequalityandcontentofpetitionresponsescancarryadditionalimpactbycreatingavenuesforfurtherengagement.

Forexample,aresponsetoapetitioncallingforthecreationofa“DeathStar”(afictionalspacestationfrom“StarWars”)

includedmanylinkstospace-relatedprojectsalreadyunderdevelopment,essentiallyredirectingthosewhoexpressed

interestinspaceexplorationtotheappropriateresources(e.g.,

NASAnewslettersandwebsites).53Onelinkincludedinthepetition

responseleadto10,000signup’sfora“SpottheStation”toolona

NASAsiteand“TheimpactonNASA’sCommercialCrewandCargo

ProgramOffice(C3PO)pagewashuge.Traffictothesiteincreased

about200xbetweenJan.10-12.Thetrafficoverthatweekend

representsmorethanhalfthetraffictothatpagefortheentire

month.”54Whilenotseenineverypetitionresponse,thispractice

encouragespetitionerstoremainengagedwithgovernmentand

itsresources,eveniftheWhiteHousedoesnotchoosetotakethe

actionrequestedinthepetition.

Eachpetitionresponsecreatesauniquerelationshipwithits

signatories,givingtheWhiteHouseanopportunityeachtime

tomakepetitionersfeelunderstoodandheard.However,this

outcomecaneasilybecomecompromisedbythequalityofthe

petitionresponse,aswellasunrealisticpublicexpectationsforwhat

petitionscanaccomplish.Asthesitedevelops,therelationship

betweenpetitionersandtheWhiteHousewillalsocontinueto

evolve.

18

Technical Considerations

AninternalteamofdevelopersattheWhiteHousecreatedtheWethePeopleplatform.Whiletheplatformusesfeatures

similartoothere-petitionplatforms,itwasnotbuiltfromexistingopen-sourcee-petitionplatformcode.Theplatform

wasbuiltusingDrupal,anopen-sourcecontentmanagementsystem.TheWhiteHousemadetheplatformcodeavailable

throughanopen-sourcelicenseinAugust2012,whichcanbefoundatgithub.com/WhiteHouse/petitions.Likeother

e-petitionplatforms,WethePeopleoffersbasicpetitionfunctionalityincludingsigning,creating,andbrowsingpetitions.

Thesitealsofeaturesadditionalfunctionality,suchasafeaturedresponsepage,issuecategoriesandtags,sitemoderation,

accountsign-ups,andvideo/multimediacapabilities.

Theaddedfunctionalityallowsthesiteadministratorstomoreeasilyorganizeinformation,bothforsiteusersandforback-

endpurposes.Forexample,usingpredefinedcategoriesmakesiteasiertosearchforpetitionsrelevanttocitizeninterests

andallowstheWhiteHousetounderstandwhichissuesaregeneratinginterestinspecificgeographicareas.Theaccount

structureallowsinformationtobetrackedoveralongperiodoftime,acrossinterestareaandgeography.Theusagedata

ispubliclyavailable(petitionersareidentifiedbytheirinitialsandZIPcodes)andcanbeusedbythegovernmentandthe

publictounderstandareasofoverlappinginterest.Forinstance,inthewakeofthemassshootinginNewtown,Connecticut

inDecember2012,petitionersonbothsidesoftheguncontrolissuesignedthesamepetitionsaboutmentalhealth,

suggestingpeoplemaywhodisagreeaboutguncontrol,maystillagreeaboutmentalhealthpolicy.55

TheavailabilityofdatageneratedthroughtheWethePeoplesitespeakstotheWhiteHouse’sengagementwiththetech

communityaroundthee-petitionplatform.Inadditiontomakingtheplatformopen-source,theWhiteHousehasalso

hosteda“hackathon,”wheredeveloperswereinvitedtotheWhiteHousetocreatetoolsusingthedatageneratedbythe

site.AtthefirsthackathoninFebruary2013,developerscreatedadiversesetoftools,including“WherethePeople,”atime-

lapsedmapofpetitionsignatoriesexpressedasapercentageofthepopulation.56Thetoolsdevelopedatthehackathon

werebasedonthedevelopmentofaWethePeopleapplicationprogramminginterface(API),whichwasannouncedin

February2013.AnAPIallowsthee-petitionplatformfeaturestobeaccessedonthird-partysites.Forexample,ifyoucould

signaWethePeoplepetitiononanadvocacyorganization’swebsite,youwouldbeinteractingwiththeWethePeopleAPI.

TheWhiteHouseexplainedthepurposeoftheAPIbysaying,“Atitsmostbasic,WethePeopleisaconversation.Individuals

askquestionsoftheWhiteHouse,andtheObamaadministrationresponds.WhatthisAPIallowsustodoisbroadenthe

discussion–makeitasflexible,open,andtransparentaspossible.”57WhiletheWriteAPI(whichwouldallowinteractionon

third-partysites)isnotyetreleased,itdemonstratestheWhiteHouse’sdesiretomaketheplatformmoreaccessibleand

availableonline.58

19

Evaluation

Similarlytoothere-petitionplatforms,WethePeopleemploysvarioussiteusagemetrics,gatheredthroughGoogle

Analytics,tohelpwithevaluation.59AsofMarch13,2013,thesitehadreceivedover11.6millionsignatures,had7.2million

totalusers,andhadcollectedover178,000petitions.60However,thosenumbersdon’tpaintthewholepicture.Accordingto

ChrisWilsonofYahoo!News,about10%ofparticipantsmakeup40%ofthesignaturesonthesite,meaningthatagroupof

“supersigners”or“repeatusers”accountsformuchoftheactivityonthesite.

Inadditiontogatheringusageinformation,whichtheWhiteHouseregularlyincludesinblogpostsrelatedtothesite,the

WhiteHousealsousessurveysofsiteuserstodeterminethequalityoftheirexperienceonthesite.AccordingtotheWhite

House,86%ofsurveyrespondentswouldcreateorsignanotherpetitiononthesite;66%saidthattheAdministration’s

responsewashelpfultohear;and50%saidthattheylearnedsomethingnewasaresultofthepetitionresponse.Thisdata

suggeststhatthesiteisatleastsomewhatsuccessfulatengagingthepublic.

TheWhiteHouseemploystheWethePeopleusagedataasproofofitscommitmenttoopennessandcivicengagement,

andofitsfulfillmentoftheirgoalsforthesite.Forexample,thee-petitionplatformisoftencitedasasuccessoftheObama

Administration’scommitmenttoopengovernment.OneblogpostreflectingontheOpenGovernmentcommitment

stated,“withthelaunchoftheWhiteHouse’s‘WethePeople’petitionplatform,citizensnowhaveamorepowerfulvoice

ingovernment.”Technically,thesitehasundergonesignificantchangessinceitslaunch,includingbecomingopen-source

anddevelopinganAPI.Thesedevelopmentsareseenassuccessfulstepstowardfulfillingtheopennessandengagement

goalssetoutbyPresidentObama.Whilethesechangeswillworktoincreasethenumberofpeoplewhohaveaccesstothe

siteandprovideincreasedaccesstositedata,theydonotaddressconcernsrelatedtothetimelinessorqualityofpetition

responses.

COnClusIOnWith all of the media coverage of We the People, it can be easy to forget that the platform is young and relatively untested. While the site seems to have helped the Obama administration meet some of its open government goals, it is not yet institutionalized within the executive branch. The election of the next presidential administration and its decisions about e-petitioning will test the longevity of the platform for both the government and the public. If the next presidential administration continues utilizing e-petitioning, either through We the People or another tool, it will help solidify the practice, making e-petitions less of a political tool and more of an instrument for citizen voice. Moreover, as americans become accustomed to government-sponsored e-petitions, there may be a growing desire for increased citizen access and government response. While the full impact of We the People remains to be seen, its recent growth suggests that there is a political and public desire for simple, accessible tools for government openness and citizen access within the united states.

20

Background

QueenslandisastatesituatedinthenortheasternpartofAustraliathatcovers22.5%oftheAustraliancontinent,makingitabout2.5timesthesizeofTexas.OverhalfofQueensland’s4.5millionpeoplelivesoutsideofurbanizedareas–makingphysicalaccesstostategovernmentdifficult.

Government Structure

ThegovernmentofQueenslandismodeledaftertheBritishParliament,meaningthatithasthreebranches:parliament(legislative),cabinetandexecutivecouncil(executive),andcourts(judicial).Queenslandismadeupof89electoraldistrictseachwithanelectedrepresentativetothestateparliament,whichisunicameral.Thepoliticalparty,orgroupofpartiesworkingtogether,thatwinsthemajorityofseatsinparliament(45seats)formsagovernment,andthegroupofpartiesthatwinsthesecondhighestnumberofvotesformstheopposition.ItisimportanttonotethatAustraliahascompulsoryvotinginfederal,state,andlocalelections,meaningthatallcitizens18yearsandolderareregisteredtovoteandaresupposedtovoteinallelections.

E-Petitions in Queensland

Intheearly2000s,variousmembersofQueensland’sParliamentfacedallegationsofelectoralfraud.Theseallegationswereofgreatconcernandsparkedanindependentinvestigation,calledtheShepardsonInquiry,whichrecommendedprosecutionofsomeelectedofficials.WhiletheShepardsonInquirydidnotdirectlycallforelectoralreform,ithighlightedexistingissueswithinQueensland’ssystem.Asaresponse,theRestoringIntegrityGoodGovernmentPlan(“thePlan”)wasimplementedin2001.ThisplanwasinitiallypartofaLaborpartycampaignplatformthatcalledforinitiativesdesignedto“cutoutbadpracticesandrestoreintegritytothedemocraticprocessesoftheState.”

ThePlanfocusedonthreemaingoals:“honestdemocracy,honestelections,”andparliamentworkingonbehalfofcitizens.InthePlan,variousdirectiveswereoutlinedtoachieveeachgoal.ThedevelopmentofanonlinepetitionsystemwasincludedasameanstohelpParliamentworkforcitizens’needs.Variousotheropennessmechanismswerealsoincluded,suchasthebroadcastingofparliamentarymeetingsandane-democracytrial.70InAugustof2002,a12-monthe-petitiontrialbeganontheQueenslandParliamentwebsite.Theevaluationofthetrialtookplacethefollowingyear;itfoundthatthepublicandMembersofParliament(MPs)supportedthenewsystem,citingtheincreasedtransparencybroughtbythepublishingofministerialresponsestopaperpetitions.InNovember2003,e-petitionsbecameanofficialfeatureoftheQueenslandParliament.71

CASE STUDY:

Queensland, Australia

21

Key Decision Areas for Queensland, Australia


ThegoalsoftheQueenslande-petitionsystemshouldbeviewedwithinthecontextofthelargerRestoringIntegrityGoodGovernmentPlan,whichoutlinedgovernmentresponsetoelectoralfraud.ThePlanwascreatednotonlyasaneededresponsetoperceptionsofcorruption,butalsoasawaytoaddress“disengagementbycitizens,declininglevelsofpublictrustandinconfidenceingovernmentandincreasedpublicexpectationsforgovernmentstoberesponsive,accountable,andeffective.”72E-petitionswereincludedinthePlanasameansofmakingParliamentworkintheinterestsofcitizensandbringingthepublicintothegoverningprocess.Additionally,e-petitionsfitintothegovernment’s“commitmenttouseinformationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT)toimprovegovernmentpolicies,programs,andservices,”aswellasto“strengthenparticipatorydemocracy.”73

22

NeilLaurie,ClerkoftheQueenslandParliament,summarizedthefollowinggoalsforthee-petitionprogram:74

• StrengthenthedemocraticrightintendedbythepetitioningprocesstogivethepublicadirectvoiceintheQueenslandParliament;

• Createanadditionalavenuebywhichthepubliccanraiseissuesdirectlywiththeparliamentandprovideacentrallocationwherethepubliccanlearnaboutandsupportpetitionsofwhichtheymayhavebeenotherwiseunaware;and

• Delivergreateraccessibility,transparency,andresponsivenessaroundpetitioning.

Thesegoalshaveinfluencedthestructureofthee-petitionsystemanditsimplementation.Forexample,thee-petitionwebsiteservesasahubforallparliamentarypetitions(electronicandpaperpetitions),thusprovidingacentrallocationwherecitizenscanparticipateinthepetitionprocess.Centralizingthepetitionprocesshelpeddeliveronthegoalofbringingtransparencytothepre-existingpaperpetitionprocess.75


Queensland’se-petitionprocessisdifferentfrommanyothere-petitionprocessesintwosignificantways:thereisnosignaturethreshold,andaMemberofParliamentortheClerkoftheParliamentmustsponsorpetitionsbeforetheyarepresentedtoParliament.Whilebothpaperandelectronicpetitionsmustfindasponsor,theprocessofacquiringsponsorshipvariesbetweenpaperandelectronicpetitions.Fore-petitioncreators,ane-petitionmustfindasponsorbeforeitcanreceivesignatures.However,paperpetitionsreceivesignaturesbeforesponsorship.Apetitioncreator,calledtheprincipalpetitioner,caneitherfindasympatheticMPorcansubmitthepetitiontotheClerkoftheParliamenttoreceivesponsorship.

Thefirststepinthee-petitionprocessisfortheprincipalpetitionertofindasponsor,eitheranMPortheClerk.ContactinformationforMPsisavailableviathee-petitionsite,asisane-petitionrequestform,whichisrequiredwhenseekingpetitionsponsorship.Thee-petitionrequestformasksforthewordingofthepetition,eligibilitycriteriaforsigningthepetition,howlongthepetitionshouldremainactive,andcontactinformationfortheprincipalpetitionerandthepetitionsponsor.Theprincipalpetitionercanchoosefromamongthreeoptionstodeterminewhoiseligibletosignthepetition:Queenslandcitizens,Queenslandresidents,orvotersofacertainareawithinthestate.Assuch,itistheprincipalpetitioner’sresponsibilitytoidentifywhichgroupwouldhavethegreatestinterestorcommitmenttothepetition.

23

IfaprincipalpetitionerisabletofindanMPtosponsorthepetition,theMPfilespaperworkwiththeClerkoftheParliament,whodetermineswhetherthepetitionmeetsthestatede-petitionrequirements.76AfterpassingtheClerk’sreview,thee-petitionispostedonlineandisopenforsignatures.Apetitioncanbepostedforaminimumofoneweekandamaximumofsixmonths;theexacttimeisdeterminedbytheprincipalpetitionerandthepetitionsponsor.Signatoriestothepetitionareabletosignuptoreceiveanautomaticemailwiththepetitionresponse.Oncethepetitionhasreachedtheendofitsactiveperiod,thepetitionisclosedandpresentedtotheParliamentatitsnextsession.TheministeroverseeingthecontentareaofthepetitionmustsubmitaresponsetotheClerkwithin30days.Ifaministerisunabletorespond,areasonmustbesenttotheClerkwithin30days,andafinalresponsemustbesubmittedwithinthreemonths.Afterreceivingaministerialresponse,theClerkforwardstheresponsetotheprincipalpetitioner,thepetitionsponsor,andpetitionsignatories,andalsopoststheresponseonline.

Oncearesponseispostedonline,itcanbefoundthroughalinkontheoriginalpetition,whichbringsupaPDFoftheformalresponseletterfromtheminister.Possiblee-petitionresponsescaninclude:

• Anexplanationofwhatactionsweretakenasaresultofthepetition.

• Astatementthattheissueisunderconsideration.

• Anexplanationofwhytheissuecannotorwillnotbepursued.

Paperpetitionresponsesarehandledsimilarly,withtheexceptionthatthepetitiongatherssignaturesbeforetheprincipalpetitioneridentifiesasponsor.Responsestobothpaperandelectronicpetitionsareavailableonthee-petitionwebsite.

Managing Citizen-Government Interaction

Theinteractionbetweencitizensandgovernmentismoderatedthroughtheformalconstructionofthee-petitionwebsiteanditsrules,aswellthetypeofinteractionthattakesplaceonthesite.Thewebsite’sconditionsoutlinewhoiseligibletousethesiteandtheconsequencesofmisusingthesite.Queensland’sconditionsofuseexplicitlystatethatfailuretocomplywiththesite’stermsofusecouldresultinafineand,ifthefineisnotpaid,imprisonment.77Theprivacystatementexplainsthatpetitioners’information(name,address,emailaddress)iskeptuntilthepetitionreceivesaministerialresponseorsixmonthshaspassedsincethee-petitionwastabledbyParliament.Despitethedeletionofpetitionerinformationafteraspecifiedperiodoftime,theprivacystatementclearlyindicatesthatpetitioninformationispublicandthatitremainsavailableattheParliament’sTableOfficetobereadorcopiedafterthepetitionhasbeentabled.78Thismeansthatpetitionerinformation,includingaddressesandemailaddresses,couldbeaccessedandcopiedevenaftertheformalpetitionperiodhasended.

Theprincipalpetitionerisresponsibleforfindingasponsorforthepetitionandforadvertisingthepetitiontopotentialsignatories.“Itistheprincipalpetitioner’sresponsibilitytopromotetheirpetitionandraiseawarenessinthecommunity.TheQueenslandParliament’sroleisonlytofacilitatetheprocess.”79Whiletheburdenofadvertisingfallsontheprincipalpetitioner,MPs“andtheirelectorateofficestaffalsoplayacrucialroleinthepetitioningprocess.”MPsareprovidedwithtrainingandmaterialstoassistpetitionersastheymovethroughouttheprocess.80ThisinteractionservesasameansforMPstocreatevaluablerelationshipswithactivecitizensandreachouttovotersbyshowingtheirsupportforcitizen-driveninitiatives.PetitionerscanalsoreceivesupportfromtheOfficeoftheClerk,whocanhelpprovidestrategicguidance,suchashowlongapetitionshouldremainactive.81

24

Thise-petitioningstructurecreatesadynamicinteractionbetweencitizensandgovernment.Queensland’suseofMPorClerksponsorshipencouragesprincipalpetitionerstohaveamorepersonalinteractionwithgovernmentofficialsandhasthepotentialtocreatemeaningfulcitizen-governmentdialogue.AccordingtotheClerk,“membersofthepublicregularlyseekadviceandassistanceinpreparingpetitions.”82However,thelevelofcitizeninteractionseemstosubsideafterthepetitionenterstheformalresponseprocess.Oncethepetitionresponseisissued,thereisnospecificspaceforcitizeninteractiononthatpetition.Atthatpoint,petitionerscancreatenewpetitionsormaycontinuetoworkwiththepetitionsponsortofindamoresuitablewaytobringtheissueontotheparliamentaryagenda.

DuetoQueensland’sinvestmentinothere-democracytools,interestedpetitionersarealsoabletoviewlivebroadcastsoftheparliamentarychamber,aswellasvariouscommitteehearings.ArchivedbroadcastsareavailabledatingbacktoFebruary2011.


Queensland’spetitionswebsitewascreatedinhousebytheParliamentaryService’sInformationTechnologyService,whichhascontinuedtosupporttheOfficeoftheClerkinmanagingthepetitionsystem’stechnicalcomponents.83Itisestimatedthatthecostofbuildingthesystemwasapproximately$80,000,whichwasprimarilyspentonhardware(server),relatedsoftware,anddeveloperhours.Thepetitionsiteitselfhastwoprimaryinterfaces,oneforpetitionsignersandtheotherforsystemadministrators.Thepublicpetition-signinginterfaceislargelyautomated,includingtheclosingofapetitiononaspecificdateandthedeletionofsignatoryinformation;however,thepostingofministerialresponsesisperformedmanually.84

Thesitefeaturesincludeapetition-signingfunction,alistofcurrentpetitions(bothelectronicandpaper),alistofclosedpetitionsandministerialresponses,atotalnumberofsignaturesforeachpetition,asharefunction(tosendpetitiontofriends)andlinkstotheClerkandMPs.Topreventfraudthroughmassemailsubmissions,thee-petitionsplatformutilizesauniqueIDgenerationsystem,whichgiveseachpetitionsignatureaverifiableIDnumber“whichmustbequotedaspartofthesigningprocess.”85Whilethesiteoffersbothelectronicandpaperpetitions,theyareaccessedthroughseparatelinksonthemainpage.Additionally,thereisnosearchororganizingfunction,whichcanmakeitdifficulttonavigatetheexistingpetitions.

Evaluation

Similartoothere-petitionsystems,Queenslandevaluatesitspetitionprogramwithacombinationofusagedata,formalevaluation,andusersurveys.AccordingtotheClerkoftheParliament,therehavebeenover600e-petitionsand1,323paperpetitionssincethebeginningofQueensland’se-petitionprogram.Whiletherehavebeenmorepaperpetitions,e-petitionsgenerallyreceivemoresignaturesbecausetheycanremainavailableonthewebsiteforuptosixmonths,whichislongerthanmostpaperpetitionsremainactive.

AcomprehensiveevaluationoftheQueenslande-petitionprocessin2003“confirmedthatthesystemisprovidinganadditionalandaccessibleavenueforthecommunitytoengageinakeygovernmentprocessandthatthereisahighlevelofsupportinthecommunityandamongMembersofParliamentforthee-petitionprocess.”86This2003evaluationfoundthatusersofthee-petitionsystembelievedittobeaconvenienttoolthatincreasedtransparencyinthepetitionprocessandencouragedpublicinputingovernmentdecision-making.

25

BetweenApril2003andMay2005,thepetitionsiterananonlinesurveytogatherinformationfromusers.Approximately3.5%ofsiteusersrespondedtothesurvey,whichaskedwhypeopledecidedtousethesite,howtheyfoundoutaboutthesite,whatactivitiestheydidwhileonthesite,iftheywouldreturn,andtheirgeneralsatisfactionwiththesite.Surveyrespondentsfoundtheprocesseasytouseandthoughtitwas“ausefulopportunityfordemocraticparticipation.”87Mostsurveyrespondentsdiscoveredthesitethroughthepromotionofaspecificpetition,“includingrecommendationsfromothers(39%),word-of-mouth(14%)orfromtheprincipalpetitioner(10%).”88Whenaskedwhypetitionerssignedane-petition,over40%citedconvenience,andaboutaquartersaidtopromptapetitionresponse.89Thissurveyhelpedtoprovideasetofrecommendationsforimprovementstothee-petitionsystem.Unfortunately,therehasbeennoformalevaluationoftheQueenslande-petitionsystemsince2005,soitisnotclearhowthegovernmenthasrespondedtoearlierrecommendations.

COnClusIOnQueensland’s e-petition system demonstrates the usefulness of e-petitions as a mechanism to bridge the physical divides between government and the public. as noted by the Clerk of the Parliament, creating citizen access to government with a dispersed population can be difficult, and “providing accessible government and avenues for people to have their say on matters that are important to them and their communities, regardless of their location, is particularly important and challenging in Queensland.” 90

as part of a larger government initiative, Queensland was able to use e-petitions as a force for citizen action and government transparency. While the features of the Queensland e-petition site are not flashy, the site is easy to navigate and delivers timely government responses, without the constraint of a signature threshold. Other large communities, such as states or agencies with large, decentralized constituencies, can look to Queensland as a model for e-petitioning on a large scale that still addresses relatively local or detailed citizen concerns.

26

Background

BristolisacityinSouthWestEnglandwithapopulationof428,100.Thecityhasundergoneapopulationincreaseof9.7%since2001andoverthepastdecadeithasexperiencedaninfluxofinternationalimmigrants,particularlyfromIndia,Somalia,andPoland.Thepopulationisrelativelyyoung,withover70%undertheageof50,whichhascreatedstrainsonawiderangeofgovernmentservices.91

IndustryinBristolisvariedandincludestechnology,financialservices,banking,anddistribution.However,Bristolfaces“urbanchallengessuchascongestionandhighhousepricesrelativetoincome.Compoundedbyadifficultfinancialclimate,workersandyoungerpeoplearefindingithardertofindworkandsomewheretolive.”92Inaddition,Bristolcontainspocketsofpoverty.In2008,anestimated27%ofchildrenlivedinpovertyinthecity,andinsomeareaspovertyamongchildrenreaches60%.93

Government Structure

TheBristolCityCouncilismadeupofaMayor,whoservesathree-and-a-half-yearterm,andcouncillors,whoservefour-yearterms.Therearetwocouncillorsforeachofthecity’s35wards.TheMayorselectsaCabinetofuptoeightcouncillorstooverseevariousservicesanddeterminekeypolicies.Atvarioustimesthroughouttheyear,allofthecouncillorsgatherinaFullCounciltoappointcommittees,adoptandamendpolicyandbudgetframeworks,andsetthebudget.94

E-Petitions in bristol

Intheearly2000s,Bristolcityadministratorsrecognizedthatthecitywasexperiencingasignificantdeclineinvoting,especiallyamongtheyoung.95Toaddressthisparticipationvacuum,thecitybeganexploringwaystoincreasecitizenaccesstoandinvolvementinthecitycouncil.In2000,BristolexperimentedwithConsultationFinder,anonlinesystemwherecitizenscouldexploreallofthecouncil’spubicconsultations.96Asthisexperimentationwasoccurring,theBritishgovernmentlaunchedanationwidee-democracyinitiative,calledtheLocale-DemocracyNationalProject97,fundedthroughtheOfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister.In2004Bristol,alongwithoneothercity,wasawardedseveralgrantsthroughthise-democracyinitiativetopilotnewparticipatorytools,includinge-petitions.98

Bristolbeganane-petitionpilotprogramin2004,usingamodifiedversionofthee-petitionerplatformdevelopedbyNapierUniversity,EdinburghfortheScottishParliament.Duringthesix-monthtrial,thee-petitionsystemreceived9petitionsand890signatures.Throughoutthepilotperiodoftheproject,thee-democracyprogramteamexpendedsignificantefforttoensurethatcitycouncilorsanddepartmentmanagersunderstoodthee-petitionsystemandtheirrolewithintheprocess.Overtime,theprocesshasbecomeacceptedandexpectedbycitizensandcouncillors.100

Attheendofthepilotperiod,theownershipofe-petitiontechnologydevelopedforBristolundertheLocale-DemocracyNationalProjectwastransferredtoBristol.101In2007,Bristol,inconjunctionwithNapierUniversityandPublicI,102modifiedthepilotede-petitionplatformtobettersuittheneedsofplatformadministrators.Forexample,theinitialplatformallowed

CASE STUDY:

Bristol, England

27

forsignatoriestoleavecommentsforeachsignature,whichbecametootimeintensiveforplatformadministratorstomanageandwasomittedfromtheplatformredesign.103Overtime,theplatformhascontinuedtodevelopandnowincludessocialmediasharingamongotherfeatures.Bristol’se-petitionplatformcontinuestobepartofalargere-democracyprogramthatincludeswebcastingcouncilmeetings,onlinediscussionforums,andthepublicconsultationfinder.104

Bristolwasaglobalpioneerinlocalgovernmente-petitioning.TheBristole-petitionplatformhasbecomeamodelfore-petitioningatthelocallevelandhasbeenreplicatedaroundtheworld.

28

Key Decision Areas for Bristol, England In this section, we explore the key decisions in e-petition implementation in bristol.


AlthoughBristolinitiallydevelopeditse-petitionsystemaspartofalargernational-levele-democracyinitiative,Bristol’se-petitionadministratorsandcouncillorsdeterminedthattheprogrambroughtvaluetobothcitizensandgovernment.105 Bristol’sDemocraticServicesTeam,whichmanagesthee-petitionsystem,describedthefollowingengagementgoalsforBristol’se-petitionsystem:106

• Informthepublicabouttheworkofthecitycouncil

• Engagethepublicintheworkofthecouncil

• Promotedemocraticinvolvement

Thesegoalsaddressbothgovernmentandcitizenneeds.Forthecitycouncil,e-petitionsprovideapathtowardunderstandingtherolesandresponsibilitiesofcitycouncillors,aswellasmakingcouncillorsmorevisibletovoters.Citizensareprovidedconvenientaccesstotheformalpolicy-makingprocess,inadditiontoincreasedaccountabilitythroughpublicresponsesandmoretransparentdecision-making.107GiventhehighconcentrationofyoungercitizensinBristol,theirlowvoterturnout,andtheirhighInternetusagerates,e-petitions(alongwithothere-democracytools)wereseenasagoodwaytoincreaseparticipation.108


Bristol’se-petitionsiteclearlyoutlinestheformalstructureofthee-petitionandpaperpetitionprocessthroughadocumenttitled“BristolCityCouncilPetitionsScheme.”Electronicandpaperpetitionsaretreatedequallybythecouncilandmustconformtocertainrestrictions,includinganexclusionofpetitionsrelatedtoplanning,licensing,orissuesthatareunderappeal.

However,e-petitionsoperateunderaslightlydifferenttimelineandprocess.Afteraleadpetitionercreatesapetition,providesthenecessarypersonalinformation,anddetermineshowlongtheywouldliketheirpetitiontostayactive,109theBristole-petitionadministratorhasuptofivedaystodeterminewhetherthepetitionissuitableforonlineposting.Ifforsomereasonthepetitionisdeemedunsuitable,thesiteadministratorcontactstheleadpetitionerandrequestschangesbeforethepetitioncanberesubmitted.Iftheleadpetitionerdoesnotrespondwithchangeswithintendays,asummaryofthepetition,alongwitharationaleforwhyitwasnotposted,ispostedinthe“rejectedpetitions”sectionofthesite.Petitionscanberejectedforvariousreasons,rangingfrominsufficientsubmissioninformationto“vexatious,abusiveorotherwiseinappropriate”content.110

29

Onceane-petitionisapprovedandplacedonthesite,itisopenforsignatures.Eachsignatoryisaskedtoprovidehisorhername,postcode,andavalidemailaddressthatisverifiedthroughanemailconfirmationsystem.Petitionsignatoriescanseethenamesandward(correspondingtopostcode)ofothersigners,butcontactinformationisunavailable.Afterane-petitionisclosedforsignatures(thetimeframeisdeterminedbytheleadpetitioner)andthepetitionhasaminimumof20signaturesfrompeoplewholive,workorstudyinBristol,thepetitionissubmittedtoBristol’sDemocraticServicesTeamandanacknowledgementissentviaemailtotheleadpetitionerandsignatorieswithin15days.Theacknowledgementincludes

30

informationaboutwhatthecouncilintends“todowiththepetition”andatimeframeforthecouncil’sresponse.Petitionacknowledgementsandcouncilresponsearealsopostedonline.Councilresponsescantakeoneofthefollowingforms:

• Confirmationfromthecouncilthattheactionrequestedhasbeentaken.

• Explanationofwhytheactioncannotorwillnotbetaken,and/orifthecouncilintendstotakeadifferentaction.

• Anannouncementthatthecouncilintendstodebatetheissue,alongwiththedate,time,andlocationofthatdebate.Petitionsthathavemorethan3,500signatories“triggertherighttobedebatedbythefullcouncil.”Inthiscase,petitionorganizersaregiventheopportunitytopresentatthatmeetingandreceivewrittenconfirmationoftheoutcomeofthedebate,whichisalsopostedonline.

• Adeterminationthattheissueneedsmoreinvestigationandtheplannedstepstothatend.

ThecentralrolesinBristol’se-petitionprocessareplayedbytheDemocraticServiceTeam,whichisresponsibleforcommunicatingwithpetitioners,coordinatingaresponsewithrelevantcouncilorsorcommittees,andensuringthattheprocessoccurswithintheallottedtimeframe.

Managing the Citizen-Government Interaction

Bristoltakesanactiveroleinsettingcitizenexpectationsaroundthee-petitionprocess,includingitsoutcomesandgovernmentimpact.Theformalpetitionscheme,highlightedonthemaine-petitionsite,isaprimarywayofsettingclearcitizenexpectationsforthee-petitionprocess.Petitionerswhotakethetimetoreadthepetitionschemewillhaveagoodideaofwhattheycanexpectfromthepetitionprocess,includingsubmissionrequirementsandthetimelineforresponse.Forthosewhomaynotreadtheentirepetitionscheme,thepetitionguidancesectionofthee-petitionsiteoffersasectionon“Whatcanpetitionsachieve”andsimplyoutlinestwopossibleoutcomes:bringinganissuetotheattentionofthecouncilanddemonstratingpublicsupportordisapprovalofanissue.111

Thedetailsoutlinedinthepetitionscheme,suchaspotentialresponsetypesandotherwaystosharecitizenviews,helptosetatoneofgovernmentresponsivenessandleavetheimpressionthattheBristolcouncilisgenuinelyinterestedintheconcernsofcitizens.TheBristolgovernmentfurthersthisbywebcastingcouncildiscussionsandhighlightinge-petitions,amongotherengagementactivities,onthecity’shomepage.Inaddition,thestructureofthee-petitionwebsitehelpstoshapethecitizen-governmentinteraction.Acitywebpagedescribingthee-petitionprocesshighlights“somenotablepetitionsandwhattheyhaveachieved,”suggestingtositevisitorsthatthee-petitionprocessimpactsdecision-making.112

Whilenotnecessarilyreadbymostpetitioners,thesiteuseandprivacypoliciesarealsoanimportantcomponentofwhatpetitionerscanexpectfromthee-petitionexperience.OntheTermsandConditionspage,theprivacypolicystateshowthepetitionerinformationwillbeusedandhowlongitwillbekept,alongwithhowandwhycertaininformationiscollectedandmaintained.113

However,formaldocumentationisnottheonlywaythatBristolshapesthecitizen-governmentinteraction.Whene-petitionswerefirstlaunched,theplatformwasadvertisedinlocalnewspapersandthroughpromotionalpamphlets,aswellasthroughcommunitygroupsandevents.114 Thecityalsooffersanewsletterthathighlightse-democracyactivitiesonitswebsite.

31

Bristolwasalsoabletoleveragemediacoverageofthee-petitionplatformtoencouragemoreuserstovisitthesite.Onecontroversialpetitionin2007abouttheremovalofgraffitiartbytheartistBanksygarneredover3,000e-petitionsignaturesandmediacoveragethroughoutthecountry,whichhelpedincreasecitizenawarenessaboutthesystem.115Whilethecouncildidnotcontrolthemediacoverageitself,Bristolissued“newsarticlesandpressreleasestohighlightwhatactionshavebeentakenasaresultofe-petitions.”116Indoingso,Bristolhelpedtoshapethemediacoverageofthee-petitionsplatformandsetsimpactexpectationsforcitizenpetitioners.

ItisimportanttonotethatBristolencouragescitycouncillorstoinitiatepetitionsusingthee-petitionplatform.Thiscreatesaspaceforcouncillorstotryandgaincommunitysupportfortheirdesiredpoliciesandfostersinteractionbetweenelectedofficialsandcommunitymembers.


Bristol’scurrente-petitionplatformemergedoutofthetrial-periodplatformdevelopedbyNapierUniversityandfundedthroughfederalgovernmentgrants.TheNapierUniversityplatform,e-petitioner,wasinitiallydevelopedfortheScottishParliamentandwasmodifiedtobeusedinBristol.In2007,afterthecompletionofthetrialperiod,Bristolmovedtoanopen-sourceplatformdevelopedbytheirICTcontactors,PublicI.Onmakingthistransitiontotheopen-sourceplatform,CarolHayward,aconsultationmanagerfromtheBristolCityCouncil,noted,“Theoriginalprojecttaughtusagreatdealaboute-petitioningandworkingwithNapier[University]gaveusanexcellentopportunitytoreallytestwhethere-petitionswereaneffectivee-democracytool.Webelievethatthiswasprovenhoweverwewantedtoenhancetheservicefurthertobothsupportourbackofficefunctionsmoreeffectivelyestablishingthemanagementofbothonlineandhardcopypetitions.Wewerekeenanysystemalsofittedinwithouropensoftwareapproach.”117

ThisnewerplatformwasprimarilybasedontheNapierUniversitymodel,buthadgreatercustomizationandintegrationwithBristol’sotherwebdemocracyinitiatives.BristolwasalreadycontractingwithPublicIforwebcastingservices,andPublicIaddedthedevelopmentofthee-petitionplatformatnoadditionalcosttoitsexistingcontract.PublicIcontinuestoprovidetechnicalsupporttotheBristole-petitionplatform.Thesite’sprimaryuser-facingfeaturesinclude:creatingpetitions,signingpetitions,sortingpetitions(basedonstatus,118title,date,signaturecount,orpetitiontarget),andalistofsignatories.Therevampedplatformaddedatrackingfunctiontoallowsitemanagerstotracktheprogressofpetitionsandmoreeasilymonitorpetitionstatus.Italsointegratedthemanagementofpaperpetitions,allowingpetitionadministratorsasingleinterfacetomonitorallpetitions.119

Version2oftheBristole-petitionplatformisopen-sourceandcanbefoundathttp://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/epetitions/home.ThenewestversionofthesoftwareusedonthecurrentBristolsiteispubliclyofferedbyPublicIfor£3,500,alongwithayearlysite-hostingfeeof£500.120Thesamesoftwarecanbeseenonothergovernmentpetitionsites,suchastheWestSussexCountyCouncilsite,whichisalmostidenticaltoBristol’ssiteexceptforitsbranding.121

32

Evaluation

TheBristolcaseisuniqueinthatthetrialperiodofthee-petitionplatformwasthoroughlyevaluatedaspartoftheLocale-DemocracyNationalProject.Themetricsusedaspartofthetrialincludedsiteusage,implementationcosts,andpotentialforimpact.Consideringthatatrialofe-petitioninghadnotoccurredonthelocallevelbefore,theresultsappearedpromising.Afterasix-monthtrial,ninee-petitions122hadbeensubmitted,and16monthslater,inJuly2006,theplatformhadreceived39e-petitions.123Theplatformwasjudgedtoberelativelyresource-intensiveforlocalcouncils,butlesssoforcitizens.124

CurrentevaluationoftheBristole-petitionsystemfocusesonusageofthee-petitionplatform,intermsofthenumberoftotalsignaturesandthenumberofpetitionssubmittedonayearlybasis.Thee-petitionsystemhasreceivedover200,000signatures,andthenumberofe-petitionsreceivedrangesfrom21to55peryear.125Additionally,theDemocraticServicesTeamthatoverseesthee-petitionplatformusessurveystogatherfeedbackfromcitizenparticipants,butresponseratesarelow.126However,anecdotalevidencesuggeststhatthee-petitionsystemhasengagedthepublic,especiallyyoungerpeople.127

COnClusIOnThe experience of bristol, an early adopter of e-petitioning, points to both the obstacles and opportunities of local government e-petitioning. The widespread acceptance and use of the platform speaks to the value that e-petitioning brings both the public and elected officials. While it offers a place to voice public concern, it also provides public officials with a means to promote their policies and understand public opinion. bristol’s experimentation with its site shows that e-petitions require time and management to work effectively, and can be strengthened by other simultaneous e-democracy activities. lessons like these can be taken and applied to other localities interested in pursuing e-petition processes, making Bristol a model for thoughtful and evolving local e-petition experimentation.

33

Constructingane-petitionsystemthatmeetstheuniqueneedsofyourjurisdictionrequiresmakingacomplexandinterconnectedsetofdecisionsasyoumovetowardandthroughimplementation.Inparticular,asyoumovethroughthedesignofane-petitionsystem,itwillbeessentialtoregularlyrevisitthegoalsyousetattheoutsettoensurethatyoure-petitionprocesswillserveyourcommunityaswellasyourgovernment.Whileitwillbeimportanttoaddressallofthequestionsraisedinthispaperandtostudycarefullythethreecaseswehavefeatured,therearefourmajorrecommendationsworthemphasizing.

• rEMaIn flExIblE anD aWarE Of yOur COMMunITy COnTExT.Whatworksinoneplacemaynotworkinanother,eveniftheplaceshavesimilarcharacteristics.Makesurethattheprocessthatyoucreateisabletomeetyourcommunity’sspecificneeds.

• ExPErIMEnT anD EvaluaTE, PublICly. E-petitionimplementationisaniterativeprocessandthepetitionsystemyoucreatewilllikelychangeovertime.Beopentothatchangeandincludethepublicinmakingimportantadjustmentstotheprocess.Prepareregularevaluationsofthee-petitionprogramandreachouttothepublicfortheirfeedback.Allowthepublictohelpshapethedirectionofthee-petitionplatform,sothatitreflectstheusers’needs.

• TransParEnT OuTCOMEs arE bEsT sErvED by a TransParEnT PrOCEss.Ifoneofyoure-petitiongoalsistoincreasetransparencywithinthegoverningbody–andwebelieveitshouldbe-makesurethatthedecision-makingbehindthepetitionresponsesistransparent.

• E-PETITIOns alOnE May nOT bE suffICIEnT. Asthecasestudiesshow,e-petitionsareusuallypartofalargeropengovernmentagenda.Usingane-petitionprocessonitsownisunlikelytobeenoughtocreateagenuinelyparticipatoryandtransparentenvironment.

Asmorecommunitiesimplementandinnovatearounde-petitions,ournotionsofbestpracticeswillchange.Inthelonghistoryofpetitionsandgovernance,e-petitions,wemustremember,arestillintheirinfancy.However,itissafetosaythatthespreadofe-petitionsisapositivedevelopmentforthepracticeofdemocraticparticipation.Forcitizens,thecontinueduseofe-petitionsystemscanleadtoagreatercapacityforcivicparticipation,agreater

abilitytogetthingsonthegovernmentagenda,andgreaterexpectationsforpoliticalparticipationoutsideofthevotingbooth.Citizenparticipationandincreasedgovernmentaccountabilitythroughe-petitionprocesseshasgenuinepotentialtostrengthenlinkagesbetweenelectedofficialsandtheparticipatorypublic.

Whilee-petitionprocessescreateadditionalpathwaysforcitizens’participationingovernance,theircontinuedusealsohasthepotentialtoimpactpublicofficials’viewsofparticipation.Ase-petitionsnotonlyprovidedecision-makerswithgreaterinsightintopublicopinionbutalsoeasywaystoorganizeandmobilizeandfostermorepositiverelationshipswiththepublic,decision-makersmaybegintorecognizethebenefitofgreaterinvestmentsinparticipatoryactivities.

Wehopethiscanleadtoalargerroleforpublicparticipationwithinourpoliticaldiscourseateverylevelofgovernment.Beyondtheseimpacts,widespreaduseofe-petitionsystemshasthepotentialtonormalizeandinstitutionalizethepracticeofe-petitions.Publicdiscussionofe-petitionsmaybegintofocuslessonsillyorimplausiblepetitionsandmoreonthesuccessfulpetitionsthathavecreatedasubstantivepolicyimpact.AsJ.H.SnidersaidabouttheWethePeoplesite,“wejudgeademocraticprocessnotbyhowmanybadideasareproposedbutbyhowmanygoodideasactuallygetturnedintolaw.”128

Thisisanexcitingtimetobeexploringe-petitionsandhowtheycanbeusedtostrengthenparticipatorydemocracy.Wecongratulateyouforconsideringe-petitionimplementationinyourcommunity.

Conclusion

34

1. UnitedKingdom.HouseofCommonsInformationOffice.Public Petitions.<http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p07.pdf>

2. Higginson,StephenA.AShortHistoryoftheRighttoPetitionGovernmentfortheRedressofGrievances.TheYaleLawJournal,Vol.96,No.1(Nov.,1986),pp.142-166.TheYaleLawJournalCompany,Inc.

3. Foramorein-depthdiscussionofthedifferentdefinitionsofe-petitions,seeLindner,Ralf.ElectronicPetitionsandInstitutionalModernization.InternationalParliamentaryE-PetitionSystemsinComparativePerspective.EJournalofeDemocracyandopengovernment1.107Sep2009:1-11.DanubeUniversityofKrems.

4. Bochel,Catherine.“PetitionsSystems:ContributingtoRepresentativeDemocracy?”Parliamentary Affairs(2012):1-18.25Oct.2012.

5. Ibid

6. Custer,Samantha. ICT Enabled Citizen Feedback Loops.How-ToNotes.WorldBankInstitute.<http://blogs.worldbank.org/ic4d/call-for-feedback-how-to-note-on-ict-enabled-citizen-feedback-loops>.

7. Thisideaisoftenreferredtoasproceduraljustice.

8. Finnimore,Stephen.“E-Petitions-TheQueenslandExperience.”ANZACATTSeminarJanuary2008.Hobart.AustraliaandNewZealandAssociationofClerksattheTable.

9. Jaffe,Eric.“HowtheLocationofStateCapitalsInfluencesPoliticalCorruption.”The Atlantic Cities.20May2013.<http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/05/how-geography-influences-political-corruption/5642/>.

10. Effective Petitioning – The Internet Way: Third Edition. Publication.InternationalCentreofExcellenceforLocalEDemocracy,UnitedKingdom,2008.<http://www.algim.org.nz/Documents/Whitepapers/ePets.pdf>.

11. “ActuallyTakeThesePetitionsSeriouslyInsteadofJustUsingThemasanExcusetoPretendYouAreListening.” We the People: Your Voice in Our Government.20Feb.2013.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN>.

12. Australia.QueenslandParliament.E-petitions Information Brochure.<http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/Assembly/Petitions/information_brochure.pdf>.

13. Hickey,Walter.“The10MostPopularPetitionsThatPresidentObamaHasNotYetRespondedTo.”BusinessInsider,8Jan.2013.Web.<http://www.businessinsider.com/10-most-popular-white-house-petitions-without-response-2013-1?op=1>.

14. FormoreinformationonhowtheICTcanbeusedforconstituentmobilization,see:Fung,Archon,HollieRussonGilman,andJenniferShkabatur.“SixModelsfortheInternet+Politics.” International Studies Review15.1(2013):30-47.<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/misr.12028/abstract>.

15. “WethePeople.”TheWhiteHouse.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/>.

16. Brewin,Michael.Telephoneinterview.28Jan.2013.

17. Seeexampleshttp://petitiononline.com/,http://epetitions.net/,http://ipetitions.com/,http://www.gopetition.com/.

18. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/,www.change.org,www.avaaz.org

19. “WethePeople.”TheWhiteHouse.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions>.

20. Australia.QueenslandParliament. E-petitions Information Brochure.<http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/Assembly/Petitions/information_brochure.pdf>.

21. Forathoroughdiscussionofevaluatingcitizenparticipationmechanisms,see:Nabatchi,Tina.A Manager’s Guide to Evaluating Citizen Participation. IBMCenterforTheBusinessofGovernment.<http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/A%20Managers%20Guide%20to%20Evaluating%20Citizen%20Participation.pdf>.

Endnotes

35

22. “TheWorldFactbook:UnitedStates.”CIA.<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html>.

23. “Minn.Bd.Commun.forCollegesv.Knight-465U.S.271(1984).” Justia US Supreme Court Center.<http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/465/271/>.

24. Toviewthefullplan,visithttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/us_national_action_plan_final_2.pdf

25. TheWhiteHouse.Government Self-Assessment Report for the United States of America.TheOpenGovernmentPartnership.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ogp_selfassessment_march2013.pdf>.

26. Chopra,Aneesh,andCassSunstein.“TheUnitedStatesReleasesItsOpenGovernmentNationalActionPlan.”Open Government Initiative.TheWhiteHouse,20Sept.2011.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/20/united-states-releases-its-open-government-national-action-plan>.

27. Phillips,Macon.“SunshineWeek:InCelebrationofCivicEngagement.”The White House Blog. TheWhiteHouse,13Mar.2013.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/13/sunshine-week-celebration-civic-engagement>.

28. Ibid

29. “FeaturedResponses.”We the People. TheWhiteHouse,.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses>.

30. Phillips,Macon.“WhyWe’reRaisingtheSignatureThresholdforWethePeople.”The White House Blog. TheWhiteHouse,15Jan.2013.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/15/why-we-re-raising-signature-threshold-we-people>.

31. Phillips,Macon.“WethePeople:AnnouncingWhiteHousePetitions&HowTheyWork.” The White House Blog.TheWhiteHouse,1Sept.2011.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/01/we-people-announcing-white-house-petitions-how-they-work>.

32. Ibid

33. Phillips,Macon.“WetheCoders:Open-SourcingWethePeople,theWhiteHouse’sOnlinePetitionsSystem.”The White House Blog.TheWhiteHouse,23Aug.2012.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/08/23/open-sourcing-we-the-people>.

34. “DemocraticPartyPlatforms:2008DemocraticPartyPlatform.”TheAmericanPresidencyProject,25Aug.2008.<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283>.

35. “AboutOpenGovernment.”TheWhiteHouse.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/about>.

36. “FrequentlyAskedQuestions.”We the People. The White House. <https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/frequently-asked-questions>.

37. “WethePeople.”TheWhiteHouse.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions>.

38. “Introduction.” We the People. The White House. <https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/introduction>.

39. “ActuallyTakeThesePetitionsSeriouslyInsteadofJustUsingThemasanExcusetoPretendYouAreListening.”We the People.TheWhiteHouse,28Oct.2011.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN>.

40. Hickey,Walter.“The10MostPopularPetitionsThatPresidentObamaHasNotYetRespondedTo.”BusinessInsider,8Jan.2013.<http://www.businessinsider.com/10-most-popular-white-house-petitions-without-response-2013-1?op=1>.

41. “ActuallyTakeThesePetitionsSeriouslyInsteadofJustUsingThemasanExcusetoPretendYouAreListening.”WethePeople.TheWhiteHouse,28Oct.2011.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN>.

42. “TermsofParticipation.”We the People.TheWhiteHouse.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/terms-participation>.

36

43. “MakeUnlockingCellPhonesLegal.”We the People.TheWhiteHouse,24Jan.2013. <https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7>.

44. Stern,Joanna.“’It’sTimetoLegalizeCellPhoneUnlocking,’SaysWhiteHouse.”Abcnews.go.com.ABCNews,4Mar.2013.<http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/white-house-legalize-cellphone-unlocking-responds-petition-people/story?id=18649981#.UZvH6StARZ9>.

45. “TermsofParticipation.”We the People.TheWhiteHouse.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/terms-participation>.

46. “ActuallyTakeThesePetitionsSeriouslyInsteadofJustUsingThemasanExcusetoPretendYouAreListening.”We the People.TheWhiteHouse,28Oct.2011.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN>.

47. “IntroductoryVideo.”We the People.TheWhiteHouse.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/>.

48. “OurOnlinePrivacyPolicy.”The White House. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/privacy#1-4>.

49. Phillips,Macon.“WethePeopleUpdate.”The White House Blog.TheWhiteHouse,3Nov.2011.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/03/we-people-update>.

50. The White House Blog.TheWhiteHouse.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/issues/we-the-people?page=1>.

51. Marks,Joseph.“WhiteHouseDefendsWethePeoplePetitionResponses.”Nextgov.com,4Nov.2011.<http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2011/11/white-house-defends-we-the-people-petition-responses/50072/>.

52. Phillips,Macon.“We’reListening.Seriously.”We the People.TheWhiteHouse.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/were-listening-seriously>.

53. Shawcross,Paul.“ThisIsn’tthePetitionResponseYou’reLookingFor.”We the People.TheWhiteHouse.<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking>.

54. Wilson,Jim.“DeathStarResponseInspiringFutureExplorers?”Nasa.gov. NASA,5Feb.2013.<http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/nasadotgov/posts/post_1360093494762.html>.

55. Wilson,Chris.“ThoseWholikeR.KellyAlsolikeInternationalHerniaAwarenessDay:WhiteHousePetitionsasaSocialNetwork.”Yahoo! News. 8Mar.2013.<http://news.yahoo.com/those-who-liked-r--kelly-also-like-international-hernia-awareness-day--white-house-petitions-as-a-social-network-050307279.html>.

56. Welsch,Peter.“LookingBackattheWhiteHouseHackathon.”The White House Blog.TheWhiteHouse,2Mar.2013.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/02/looking-back-white-house-hackathon>.

57. Heyman,Leigh.“There’sNowanAPIforWethePeople.”The White House Blog.TheWhiteHouse,1May2013.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/05/01/theres-now-api-we-people>.

58. Welsch,Peter.“AnnouncingWethePeople2.0andaWhiteHouseHackathon.”The White House Blog.TheWhiteHouse,5Feb.2013.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/05/announcing-we-people-20-and-white-house-hackathon>.

59. “OurOnlinePrivacyPolicy.”The White House. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/privacy#1-4>.

60. Phillips,Macon.“SunshineWeek:InCelebrationofCivicEngagement.”The White House Blog.TheWhiteHouse,13Mar.2013.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/13/sunshine-week-celebration-civic-engagement>.

61. Wilson,Chris.“ThoseWholikeR.KellyAlsolikeInternationalHerniaAwarenessDay:WhiteHousePetitionsasaSocialNetwork.” Yahoo! News.8Mar.2013.<http://news.yahoo.com/those-who-liked-r--kelly-also-like-international-hernia-awareness-day--white-house-petitions-as-a-social-network-050307279.html>.

37

62. Phillips,Macon.“SunshineWeek:InCelebrationofCivicEngagement.”The White House Blog. TheWhiteHouse,13Mar.2013.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/13/sunshine-week-celebration-civic-engagement>.

63. Ellman,Lisa,andNickSinai.“FulfillingOurCommitmenttoOpenGovernment.”The White House Blog.TheWhiteHouse,22Feb.2013.<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/22/fulfilling-our-commitment-open-government>.

64. “AreaofAustralia-StatesandTerritories.”GeoscienceAustralia,AustralianGovernment,18Nov.2010.<http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/area-of-australia-states-and-territories.html>.

65. “AustralianDemographicStatistics,Sep2012.”AustralianBureauofStatistics.<http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3101.0/>.

66. “InterestingFactsaboutQueensland.”QueenslandGovernment.<http://www.qld.gov.au/about/about-queensland/statistics-facts/facts/>.

67. “SystemofGovernment.”QueenslandGovernment.<http://www.qld.gov.au/about/how-government-works/system-of-government/>.

68. QueenslandParliament. Restoring Integrity: The Beattie Good Government Plan for Queensland.<http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/TableOffice/TabledPapers/2001/5001T369.pdf>.

69. Ibid

70. Ibid

71. “Procedures.”QueenslandParliament.<http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/en/work-of-assembly/procedures>.

72. Laurie,Neil.E-mailinterview.6Mar.2013.

73. Ibid

74. Ibid


76. Formoreinformationonthesiterequirementsforposting,pleaseseehttp://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/petitions/overview/rules

77. “InformationonE-Petitions.”QueenslandParliament.<http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/petitions/overview/info_on_epetitions>.

78. “PrivacyStatement.”QueenslandParliament.<http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/global/privacy-statement>.


80. Ibid

81. Ibid

82. Ibid

83. Ibid



38

86. Ibid


88. Ibid

89. Ibid


91. “Bristol:StateoftheCity,StatisticalUpdate2012.”BristolCityCouncil.<http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council_and_democracy/statistics_and_census_information/State%20of%20the%20City%20August%202012%20v10.pdf>.

92. Ibid

93. Ibid

94. FormoreinformationonthestructureofBristolgovernment,pleaseseehttp://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/council-and-democracy/how-council-works

95. UnitedKingdom.BristolCityCouncil.Democracy, What Does That Mean? Young People’s Views of Democracy on and off Line.LocalE-DemocracyNationalProject.<http://askbristol.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/cx-e-democracy-young-people.pdf>.


97. TheLocale-DemocracyProjectwasallotted4millionpoundsfromtheOfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinistertohelp“helplocalauthoritiesexploitthepotentialofnewtechnologiesfordemocraticrenewal.”http://askbristol.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/co-e-demo-what-works.pdf

98. “Bristol’sE-DemocracyProgramme-ASKBristol.” Bristol City Council. <http://askbristoldebates.com/about/bristols-e-democracy-programme/>.

99. Effective Petitioning – The Internet Way: Third Edition.Publication.InternationalCentreofExcellenceforLocalEDemocracy,UnitedKingdom,2008.


101. “LocalE-Government:FutureStrategyOutlinedforNationalProjectProducts.”LocalGovernmentChronicle,21Feb.2005.<http://www.lgcplus.com/lgc-news/local-e-government-future-strategy-outlined-for-national-project-products/556595.article>.

102. PublicIisafor-profittechnologycompanywhichalsodevelopedtheothere-democracyinitiativesforBristolsuchastheConsultationFinderandWebcasting


104. “HaveYourSay-ASKBristol.”Bristol City Council Homepage.<http://www.bristol.gov.uk/node/6842>.



107. Effective Petitioning – The Internet Way: Third Edition. Publication.InternationalCentreofExcellenceforLocalEDemocracy,UnitedKingdom,2008.

39

108. UnitedKingdom.BristolCityCouncil.Democracy, What Does That Mean? Young People’s Views of Democracy on and off Line.LocalE-DemocracyNationalProject.<http://askbristol.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/cx-e-democracy-young-people.pdf>.

109. Generallyisfor6monthsbutthepetitionercanchooseashorterorlongertimeframe

110. “PetitionsScheme.”BristolCityCouncil.<http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/petitions>.

111. “OnlinePetitions.”BristolCityCouncil.<http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/epetition_core/community/page/petitionguidance#internalSection10>.

112. “E-petitions.” Bristol City Council Homepage.<http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/council-and-democracy/e-petitions>.

113. Formoreinformation,seehttp://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/epetition_core/community/page/terms


115. Butler,Patrick.“AGraphicExampleofHi-TechDemocracy.” The Guardian.GuardianNewsandMedia.06Mar.2007.<http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/07/guardiansocietysupplement.politics?INTCMP=SRCH>.


117. Ibid

118. Possiblestatusesinclude:rejected,collectingsignatures,awaitingsubmission,submitted,pendingownerresponse,andclosed


120. PleasenotethatPublic-IdoesnotcurrentlyofferitsservicesintheUnitedStates.Thecostisintendedtoprovideageneralsenseofimplementationcosts.

121. “WestSussexEpetitions.”West Sussex Epetitions.15Feb.2013.<http://epetition.westsussex.public-i.tv/epetition_core/>.


123. UnitedKingdom.BristolCityCouncil. E-Democracy in Bristol.ByStephenHilton.Jan.2007.

124. Ibid


126. Ibid


128. Snider,J.H.“WhatIstheDemocraticFunctionoftheWhiteHouse’sWeThePeoplePetitionWebsite?”The Huffington Post. 20Oct.2011.<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jh-snider/what-is-the-democratic-fu_b_1018865.html>.

105017thStreetNW,Suite250Washington,DC20036www.americaspeaks.org

Government Sponsored E-Petitions

Documents

Transcript of Government Sponsored E-Petitions