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
Determining Engagement Goals
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
Connecting E-Petitions to Decision-Making
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.
Technical Considerations
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.
Determining Engagement Goals
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
Connecting E-Petitions to Decision-Making
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.
Technical Considerations
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
75. Finnimore,Stephen.“E-Petitions-TheQueenslandExperience.”ANZACATTSeminarJanuary2008.Hobart.AustraliaandNewZealandAssociationofClerksattheTable.
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>.
79. Laurie,Neil.E-mailinterview.6Mar.2013.
80. Ibid
81. Ibid
82. Ibid
83. Ibid
84. Finnimore,Stephen.“E-Petitions-TheQueenslandExperience.”ANZACATTSeminarJanuary2008.Hobart.AustraliaandNewZealandAssociationofClerksattheTable.
85. Laurie,Neil.E-mailinterview.6Mar.2013.
38
86. Ibid
87. Finnimore,Stephen.“E-Petitions-TheQueenslandExperience.”ANZACATTSeminarJanuary2008.Hobart.AustraliaandNewZealandAssociationofClerksattheTable.
88. Ibid
89. Ibid
90. Laurie,Neil.E-mailinterview.6Mar.2013.
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>.
96. Brewin,Michael.Telephoneinterview.28Jan.2013.
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.
100. Brewin,Michael.Telephoneinterview.28Jan.2013.
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
103. Brewin,Michael.Telephoneinterview.28Jan.2013.
104. “HaveYourSay-ASKBristol.”Bristol City Council Homepage.<http://www.bristol.gov.uk/node/6842>.
105. Effective Petitioning – The Internet Way: Third Edition.Publication.InternationalCentreofExcellenceforLocalEDemocracy,UnitedKingdom,2008.
106. Brewin,Michael.Telephoneinterview.28Jan.2013.
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
114. Effective Petitioning – The Internet Way: Third Edition. Publication.InternationalCentreofExcellenceforLocalEDemocracy,UnitedKingdom,2008.
115. Butler,Patrick.“AGraphicExampleofHi-TechDemocracy.” The Guardian.GuardianNewsandMedia.06Mar.2007.<http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/07/guardiansocietysupplement.politics?INTCMP=SRCH>.
116. Effective Petitioning – The Internet Way: Third Edition. Publication.InternationalCentreofExcellenceforLocalEDemocracy,UnitedKingdom,2008.
117. Ibid
118. Possiblestatusesinclude:rejected,collectingsignatures,awaitingsubmission,submitted,pendingownerresponse,andclosed
119. Effective Petitioning – The Internet Way: Third Edition.Publication.InternationalCentreofExcellenceforLocalEDemocracy,UnitedKingdom,2008.
120. PleasenotethatPublic-IdoesnotcurrentlyofferitsservicesintheUnitedStates.Thecostisintendedtoprovideageneralsenseofimplementationcosts.
121. “WestSussexEpetitions.”West Sussex Epetitions.15Feb.2013.<http://epetition.westsussex.public-i.tv/epetition_core/>.
122. Effective Petitioning – The Internet Way: Third Edition.Publication.InternationalCentreofExcellenceforLocalEDemocracy,UnitedKingdom,2008.
123. UnitedKingdom.BristolCityCouncil. E-Democracy in Bristol.ByStephenHilton.Jan.2007.
124. Ibid
125. Brewin,Michael.Telephoneinterview.28Jan.2013.
126. Ibid
127. Effective Petitioning – The Internet Way: Third Edition.Publication.InternationalCentreofExcellenceforLocalEDemocracy,UnitedKingdom,2008.
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>.