National Conference of State Legislatures
National Conference of State Legislatures
NCSL Annual Meeting News
States Look to Limit Government Liability for Year 2000 Errors
California Senate Installs New Voting System
Digital Signatures a Hot Topic for States
The American Domain Name Plan Sparks Debate
The NCSL Annual Meeting July 20-23, 1998 in Las Vegas, Nevada will feature a variety of programs dealing with telecommunications, Year 2000, legislative automation, information privacy and management of information technology. The Communications and Information Policy Committee Agenda is available now, and an overview of all the technology related sessions are contained in our Agenda-At-A-Glance.
—Submitted by Jo Anne Bourquard, NCSL
States Look to Limit Government Liability for Year 2000 Errors
With the looming specter of the Year 2000 just around the corner, some states are beginning to wonder what to do about the anticipated flood of litigation generated by date errors in state computers. Last year, Nevada became the first state to enact legislation limiting the government's liability for problems caused by state computers that malfunction because of the Year 2000 problem. This year, twelve states have introduced legislation on this topic, with Florida, Georgia, and Virginia passing bills. A more detailed summary as well as copies of the bill text is available from NCSL. The Information Technology Association of America also maintains a homepage tracking Year 2000 issues at http://www.itaa.org/Y2Klaw.htm.
—submitted by Randall Jackson, NCSL
California Senate Installs New Voting System
When the members of the California State Senate returned in January 1998 to begin the second half of the two year session, the 40 Senators were greeted with a new electronic voting system. The old system used racks of custom circuit boards, miles of wire and numerous mechanical push button switches. It was driven by software written for a DOS-based personal computer. Maintenance of the system was difficult and system failures were all too common.
After the Senate Rules Committee approved a replacement system, bids were solicited from the major vendors who offer chamber-voting systems. These bids were reviewed and the Rules Committee staff then requested the Legislative Data Center to solicit a bid from a Sacramento based consulting firm who has had extensive experience with chamber automation systems for both the California Senate and Assembly. According to Keith Felte, Senate Rules Committee Data Processing Consultant, "we believed that this vendor offered the best opportunity to acquire a custom designed solution that would be tightly integrated with our existing chamber automation system, the Senate Floor System (SFS)."
TECHNICAL DATA
The Senate Voting System Application is written in IBM VisualAge Smalltalk V4.02. It also uses the Communications, Report Writer and Distributed Objects components of the software. The operating system is Microsoft Windows NT 4.0. The database, IBM DB2, is the same database used by the Senate Floor System.
The voting system is comprised of the main voting PC (and its "hot standby") and three additional subsystems. One subsystem, utilizing a small touch screen computer, resides at the Presiding Officer's podium and is used to stop and start the debate timer. Another subsystem utilizes a laptop computer that feeds information to ten 5-inch flat panel color monitors installed along the Senate Desk to provide the staff with a "copy" of what is on the wall display. The third subsystem, also utilizing a laptop PC, provides the Senate television control room with an "image" of the Bill, its Author and Member votes during a Roll Call. This image is part of the broadcast of Senate Floor Sessions and committee hearings sent over the Capitol and public cable systems.
The main voting PC loads the Session day information from the database. File items selected are displayed upon a full matrix, 5' by 7', LED display panel on the Senate chamber wall behind the Presiding Officer. Votes are recorded locally on the primary system, on the "hot standby" and are also sent to the database. Ballots are printed after the vote is closed or placed "on call." The voting system also causes each Floor System laptop to automatically advance when the next Bill or Amendment is taken up.
DESIGN FEATURES
Working closely with the Senate Reading Clerk and the members of the Secretary of the Senate's staff, a design evolved that met the strict requirements of the presiding officer, the desk staff, as well as the other automated systems that would receive voting system information.
An object oriented design and programming approach was selected. The Senate Voting System (SVS) uses many data elements of the Senate Floor System's database such as the Daily Files (Agenda) and all information about Bills, and information about the members of the Legislature and the Senate Committees. This design approach was instrumental in understanding the complex tasks carried out by the Reading Clerk.
The design facilitates the operation of the system in exactly the same manner as the business of the session proceeds, capturing all floor voting events instantaneously and accurately. The basic premise of the voting system is that (1) subjects are brought up on the floor, (2) a motion is made, and (3) votes are taken and recorded against the motion. The voting system console is a 16" flat panel touch screen color display monitor. All of the Reading Clerk's activities can be performed on this screen by touching various buttons, menus, and lists on the flat panel. The monitor is compact, bright and clear. The California Senate adheres to the tradition of calling the roll for all votes. The system facilitates expeditious recording by the Reading Clerk of all votes during a roll call. It also allows for the managing of the roll call for "on-call bills" and substitute roll calls. Acceptance of the new system by the Reading Clerk and other desk staff has been very positive.
All of the events captured by the new voting system are sent to the Senate Floor System database for access by other legislative systems, and to the host-based Legislative Inquiry System for access by thousands of internal users. Voting information is also transferred to the Legislature's Internet server for access by the public.
TRAINING AND SUPPORT
The technical support for the new Senate Voting System is provided by the consulting firm under a contract with the Legislative Data Center (LDC). The voting system project was managed by the staff of the LDC Applications Development Division who are responsible for all chamber automation systems. Training of the desk staff in the new voting system is provided by the same LDC staff from the Customer Services Division who are available before, during and after each floor session in the Chambers to assist the Senators in using the Senate Floor System.
Automation within the Senate Chambers has been an ongoing process. The history clerks use a client/server system to record history actions and Interleaf publishing software to publish the Daily and Weekly histories. The File Clerks use Interleaf on Sun workstations to publish each Daily File (the Agenda). A new project to automate the preparation of the Senate Journal is currently in progress.
For further information call or e-mail Keith Felte(916-445-8620), Senate Rules Committee Data Processing Consultant, William E. Behnk(916-445-4966 x7720), LIS Coordinator, or Charlotte Luallin(916-445-4966 x7774), Applications Development Section Manager.
—submitted by William E. Behnk, Coordinator for Legislative Information Services in California
Digital Signatures a Hot Topic for States
With the rapid growth of electronic commerce in recent months, almost everyone is looking to get a piece of the digital action. For states, this means looking for ways to facilitate electronic transactions. Digital signatures are an important piece of the electronic commerce puzzle. For a comprehensive look at what states are doing in this area, look here. (This information is provided courtesy of Thomas Smedinghoff, a partner at the Chicago law firm of McBride Baker & Coles and chair of the Electronic Commerce Division of the ABA. Mr. Smedinghoff will be a panelist at the Electronic Commerce session at the NCSL Annual Meeting; a copy of one of his handouts is available online through NCSL.)
—Submitted by Randall Jackson, NCSL
The American Domain Name Plan Sparks Debate
As part of the Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, President Clinton directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the domain name system (DNS) in a manner that would encourage competition and promote an international partnership in its management. In January 1998, the outcome was a proposal by the Department of Commerce agency, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) entitled "A proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses," otherwise known as "The Green Paper". The Green Paper planned certain actions designed to privatize the management of Internet addresses in a mode that allows for the development of competition and facilitates global participation in Internet management, and it also suggested a private sector creation of a new not-for-profit corporation managed by a globally and functionally representative Board of Directors.
In short, the Green Paper set out four principles to guide the evolution of the domain name system: stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation. U.S. management (via the American monopoly of Network Solutions Inc.) of domain names would be eventually phased out, and the creation of new "generic top level domains" (such as ".com", ".net", and ".org") could be formed.
The reactions to the Green Paper have thus far been mixed, but it is the European community that is the most concerned. The Europeans are amply ready to jump into the domain name game, according to the Geneva-based Internet Council of Registrars, or CORE. CORE was ready to implement a new system for registering addresses in March but was usurped by the American proposal. CORE tentatively supports the U.S. offer, but is adamant about upholding the statement that the effort should be international and not-for-profit.
Currently, there is still debate over domain names. In early July, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) issued a request for comments regarding domain names. WIPO will instigate an international process to develop recommendations concerning the intellectual property issues associated with Internet domain names, including dispute resolution. In late July, CORE will join the Internet Society, an international organization dealing with Internet issues, for its Geneva conference to discuss the American plan.
—Submitted by Janna Goodwin, NCSL