• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Contents

Introduction
States With Operational Systems
States Developing Systems
Characteristics of One-Stop-Shopping Systems
Arguments for Creating a One-Stop Shop for Government Information
Arguments Against Creating a One-Stop Shop for Government Information
Conclusion
Table 1: Comparison of Available Information
Table 2: Comparison of Enabling Legislation
Appendix: Network Contacts

Introduction

State and local governments collect, use and manage large volumes of information. To ensure effective access to government policymaking and operations and to ensure government accountability, the public needs consistent, predictable access to government information. This report examines the approach of states, including Kansas, New Mexico, Indiana, Nebraska and Georgia, that have recently developed centralized mechanisms for providing electronic access to government information. These five states have instituted centralized public/private cooperative systems to provide one-stop computer-based delivery of government information.

These systems, funded by private donations and subscription revenues, centralize the management of government information dissemination. These networks are not a series of hyperlinks among individual agency home pages on the Internet; they are centralized, electronic, one-stop-shopping sources for public records and information. Each of the agencies that provides information through the system enters into an agreement with the centralized system provider to deliver information electronically on a fee basis. Through these centralized systems, uniform government information is available from a variety of agencies.

The backbone of each of these systems is a subscription service, which offers electronic access to agency records for a fee. The information obtained through the subscription service is valuable to insurance companies, banks, lobbyists and other businesses that rely on accurate government records. The revenue from the subscription service covers the systems' operating expenses, and part of the revenue is returned to the state or agency. The states receive a percentage of the networks' revenue because they provide the needed information. Each system also offers access to information, such as general agency information, job postings and electronic tax filing, free of charge over the Internet.

In addition to the five states with operational centralized systems mentioned above, at least three more states are planning networks. Arkansas and Virginia have passed legislation and Michigan's governor has issued an executive order enabling these states to set up centralized networks to disseminate public information.

The information in this report comes from surveys of network managers and on-line research conducted during the summer of 1996. A discussion of arguments both for and against one-stop-shopping systems and a comparison of the existing networks and their enabling legislation follows.

States with Operational Systems

Five states have centralized public information systems up and running.

Information Network of Kansas, www.ink.org

• Managed by: Kansas Information Consortium (private, for-profit).
• Established: Enabling legislation passed in 1990.
• Operational: Went on-line in 1992, went on the World Wide Web in 1996.
• Initial costs: $1.5 million, from private investors.
• Number of subscribers: 15,000 users conducting over 1,000,000 transactions per month.
• Subscription fees: $50 per year, plus a transaction fee per record obtained. Dial-up access costs $0.10 per minute, Internet access is free.
• Percentage of information offered free: 80 percent is available free via the Internet.
• Participating agencies: 44 state and 112 local agencies either connect their computers directly to INK or upload data onto INK's servers. Agencies may use the network internally.
• State receives: All revenue in excess of operating expenses.

In October 1996, GeorgiaNet contracted with the National Information Consortium, a private, for-profit company, to manage the network. The network remains a state authority under Georgia law. The new management has revamped the network's presence on the World Wide Web and has expanded the products and services offered. The information presented in this report reflects the management and services of GeorgiaNet prior to October 1, 1996.

• Managed by: GeorgiaNet Authority (state authority).
• Established: Enabling legislation passed in 1990.
• Operational: First made bulk motor vehicle records available in 1990. Went on-line in 1995. Went on the World Wide Web November 1, 1996.
• Initial costs: $200,000 (for on-line service), from revenues from bulk sales.
• Number of subscribers: 1,000.
• Subscription fees: Basic service costs $75 per year. Certain records or searches have added fees. Dial-up access is $0.45 per minute or $50 per month, limited Internet access is free.
• Percentage of information offered free: Limited information is available free via the Internet.
• Participating agencies: Four agencies offer information over the network and use the network internally.
• State receives: All revenue in excess of operating expenses.
• Other: New users can subscribe and download needed software from the network's website.

• Managed by: Indian@ Interactive (private, for-profit).
• Established: Announced by the governor in 1994 based on authority granted by existing law.
• Operational: Went on-line November 1995, went on the World Wide Web December 1995.
• Initial costs: $875,000, from private investors.
• Number of subscribers: 200.
• Subscription fees: $50 per year, plus a transaction fee for certain information. Dial-up access costs $0.10 per minute, Internet access is free.
• Percentage of information offered free: 95 percent is available free via the Internet.
• Participating agencies: 50 agencies offer information via the network and several more are hyperlinked to the network's website. Agencies may use the network internally. State receives: All revenue in excess of operating expenses.

• Managed by: Nebrask@ Interactive (private, for-profit).
• Established: Nebraska Library Commission contracted with the network manager to provide electronic access to public records in 1994.
• Operational: Went on-line February 1995, went on the World Wide Web August 1995.
• Initial costs: $604,000, from private investors.
• Number of subscribers: 750+.
• Subscription fees: $50 per year, plus transaction fees for certain information. Dial-up access costs $0.12 per minute, Internet access is free.
• Percentage of information offered free: Almost 90 percent is available free via the Internet.
• Participating agencies: 18 agencies provide information over the network and use the network internally. Others are hyperlinked to the network's website.
• State receives: Two percent of gross revenue, plus statutory and other fees for certain information.

• Managed by: New Mexico Technet, Inc. (private, nonprofit).
• Established: Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs, the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Industry formed the nonprofit network in 1984.
• Operational: Went on-line 1985.
• Initial costs: $5 million-the state provided $1.2 million.
• Number of subscribers: 8,000.
• Subscription fees: $50 per year, plus a monthly flat rate for access: 5 hours for $9.95, 50 hours for $24.95, 100 hours for $49.95. Additional hours cost $1.50 each. Certain records have additional fees.
• Percentage of information offered free: Most information is available free via the Internet.
• Participating agencies: Five agencies, six counties, three local governments.
• State receives: The state received $500,000 in revenue from the network in 1995.
• Other: The network is a major Internet service provider in the state and will also lease or sell any required hardware to users. New users can register on-line.

States Developing Systems

At least three states are in the process of starting centralized systems.

Information Network of Arkansas
The Arkansas General Assembly passed a bill in 1995 establishing the Information Network of Arkansas (INA). The act is modeled after INK's enabling legislation.

The network will not receive any state funds; start-up and operating costs will be financed through private donations and subscriptions.

The INA Board of Directors has started the bidding process for a network manager. The chosen contractor is expected to begin performance on Feb. 13, 1997. INA will probably be similar to INK and Access Indiana-offering most information free via the Internet and the rest of the information for a fee to subscribers.

Virginia Information Providers Network

A bill creating the Virginia Information Providers Network Authority (VIPnet) passed in 1996. The VIPnet legislation is a hybrid of the INK model and existing Virginia legislation that allows the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to collect fees for providing electronic access to public records.

Agencies are not required to participate in VIPnet, but those that do will receive 50 percent of the sales of their records. (Except for the DMV, which will receive the full amount from sales of driver's license and motor vehicle records in accordance with state law.)

Private investors will provide the network's start-up funds, and subscriptions will cover operational costs. VIPnet will offer both free and fee-based information over the Internet. The network does not have a timeline for implementation, but VIPnet has been included as a source of revenue in the FY 1997 budget. The FY 1997 budget includes an estimate that the network will provide the state with $700,480 on or before June 30, 1998.

Michigan Information Network

On June 30, 1995, the governor officially announced the Michigan Information Network (MIN) plan and issued an executive order establishing the MIN Advisory Board and Office within the Department of Management and Budget under supervision of the chief information officer.

The MIN plan envisions a network connecting every library, public school, community college, state university and independent nonprofit college. Although the focus of the plan is on providing educational resources, the plan notes that "open access to government information is one of the hallmarks of a democracy." The plan recommends that state and local agencies make publications, hearing schedules, testimony, draft legislation, proposed amendments, enacted legislation, administrative rules, statutes and other policy information available electronically at no cost or on a cost-recovery basis.

The governor's executive order establishes the MIN Advisory Board. The board consists of 15 members appointed by the governor. Its duties include coordinating and reviewing information for dissemination, deciding whether to develop the network as a private nonprofit corporation or within state government and deciding which functions of state government to consolidate with the MIN office.

Characteristics of One-Stop Shopping Systems

Public Entity, Private Venture, or Both?
Because of the scarcity of public resources, states have taken advantage of private initiative when developing centralized systems. Of the operational networks discussed in this report, only GeorgiaNet is a public entity run by the state government. The other systems are managed by private organizations. For example, the Information Network of Kansas (INK), established through enabling legislation, is managed by a private, for-profit contractor. New Mexico Technet, in contrast, started as a cooperative project between government research labs and state universities and is managed by a private nonprofit corporation.

Centralized networks operate through contracts with their state or state agencies. For instance, state law requires Kansas agencies to provide information to INK, whereas Technet has individual contracts with New Mexico agencies and local governments. The states receive a percentage of the networks' revenue because they provide the needed information.

Security Measures
In order to keep private information private, providing agencies in Kansas, Georgia, New Mexico, Nebraska and Indiana determine which information is suitable for electronic dissemination through an on-line system, based on the laws and policies in effect in their state.

All of the networks in those states report that they also use password technology to protect information and subscribers' accounts. Nebrask@ Online, INK and Access Indiana also use password technology to restrict access to certain information on a per-user basis, if necessary. Access Indiana additionally uses encryption and authentication in certain instances, where appropriate.

Monetary transactions are handled in the following ways:

• New Mexico Technet and Nebrask@ Online operate secure servers that can handle sensitive transactions.
• Access Indiana also operates a secure server and may soon offer a vehicle registration application that will allow users to pay for the registration over the Internet.
• INK is developing a corporate record-filing procedure that will accept credit card payments using the Netscape Secure Commerce Server on the Internet.

• INK can use electronic footprints to trace requesters' paths through the network. The manager keeps these audit trails for 10 years for billing and statistical purposes only. The only INK audit information released outside the network is motor vehicle records requests, which go to the Kansas Department of Revenue.
• Technet keeps audit trails for billing purposes for five years.
• Nebrask@ Online and Access Indiana permanently maintain, for billing and statistical purposes, audit information on subscribers' access to information requiring a transaction fee.
• GeorgiaNet does not retain this type of record at all.

• Technet maintains front-end security reviewed by Los Alamos National Labs.
• Access Indiana's and INK's internal servers each have their own "firewalls." Software programs also continuously monitor the systems to detect unusual activity.
• Access Indiana, INK, and Nebrask@ Online users request agency information from agency databases, but never directly connect to agency computers.
• GeorgiaNet uses password technology.

• INK reduces the probability of a crash by having several backup systems that can take over if the main system ever goes down. INK also performs daily and weekly backups.
• Technet operates redundant fiber paths and power and cooling systems to prevent network outages.
• Nebrask@ Online backs up information daily and will soon add a RAID disk system for fault-tolerant operation.
• GeorgiaNet operates redundant systems.
• Access Indiana backs up data every night, stores the tapes off premises and operates redundant servers.

Copyrighting the Systems
Currently none of the systems copyright the information they provide. However, Access Indiana copyrights software and artwork produced by network staff and licenses it perpetually to the state for use only. GeorgiaNet owns copyrights to its software, information formulation and presentation. Technet copyrights its software and licenses it to the participating state agencies and local governments.

Liability for Inaccurate Information
The agencies of all five states retain ownership of, and liability for, the information they provide to their state's system. GeorgiaNet, in addition, carries a liability disclaimer with all information provided.

Staffing the Systems
System managers report that no Nebraska, Kansas, Georgia or Indiana agencies have terminated employees because of the availability of electronic access to agency information via the one-stop shopping system. Instead, agency employees in these states have been reassigned to new positions within the agency. New Mexico Technet's on-line tax filing program, however, has resulted in the loss of some part-time data entry positions during tax time.

Cost of Access
INK, GeorgiaNet, New Mexico Technet, Nebrask@ Online and Access Indiana have made much information available free of charge. The majority of information available from these networks does not require a subscription-anyone with access to the Internet can obtain this information at no additional cost. The subscription fees for the rest of the available information are determined in the following ways:

• NK, GeorgiaNet and Access Indiana determine access fees in consultation with the public oversight committees established in the networks' enabling legislation. Fees for particular records are set by the providing agency or state statute.
• Nebrask@ Online determines access fees in consultation with the Nebraska Library Commission, the state agency with which the network has contracted to provide electronic access services. Fees for particular records are set by the providing agency or state statute.
• New Mexico Technet's fees for particular records are determined by the providing agency.

Arguments for Creating a One-Stop Shop for Government Information

Supporters of centralized systems emphasize benefits such as:

• Increased access to government information,
• Improved cost-efficiency,
• Improved accuracy of electronically accessible records,
• Public/private cooperation.

The second way in which access will increase is a result of the demand for government information in the private sector. Charging for information and services that have great value to private businesses allows the government to provide other, less market-driven information free. Citizens thus benefit from the sales to the private sector.

Improved Cost-Efficiency
Many state agencies have discovered an efficient and cost-effective way to provide access to public information-the Internet. However, funding networking capabilities for each agency is expensive and duplicative. Supporters of centralized systems ask, why buy a web server for each agency when one well-managed web server could do the job for all? Centralizing the availability of electronic public records saves the state money by reducing the amount of hardware/software and technical expertise needed. In addition, network proponents note that centralization helps reduce the duplication of records among agencies.

Improved Accuracy of Electronically Accessible Records
Supporters cite another benefit of these networks: Centralized access improves the quality and control of on-line public records. Because the records are being uniformly formatted, reviewed and posted on-line, the state has more control over the accuracy and integrity of the posted information. The state relies on the network manager to ensure quality and does not have to expend resources to monitor each individual agency's home page.

Public/Private Cooperation
Supporters argue that one-stop-shopping systems show how privatization of information delivery benefits the public. By allowing the private network manager to handle the technical details, agencies can focus on other aspects of their public service duties. In addition, the private sector demand for electronic accessibility to government information makes these systems an attractive investment for private investors. By contract, the government receives a percentage of the system revenue merely for providing public information to the network manager. Therefore, the state can see much greater returns on electronic public record dissemination for far less technical effort.

Other Benefits
Proponents cite other possible benefits of one-stop-shopping systems, including improved communication between government and its citizens, the reduction of paper records and greater efficiency for the businesses that rely on government information.

Arguments Against Creating a One-Stop Shop for Government Information

Critics of statewide centralized networks have raised concerns about:

• Security questions;
• Elimination of intermediaries;
• Legal questions, including copyright and liability for inaccurate information;
• Effect on agency jobs;
• Cost of access.

Elimination of Intermediaries
Traditionally, people needing government information either write, telephone or physically go to an office to request that information. Speaking directly with a knowledgeable agency employee can help focus the inquiry and provide answers to any questions that arise. Critics of centralized electronic public information systems point out that direct electronic access to information eliminates this human touch, potentially resulting in a confusing and frustrating experience for the requester.

Legal Questions
The concerns about centralized networks include legal questions dealing with copyright, ownership and liability. Many states copyright works produced under state authority. No one may copyright purely factual information, such as the "words of law," but the way the facts are arranged or organized may be copyrighted. Some states copyright statutory compilations and other similar works. In today's context of public/private cooperative systems, critics of these centralized public information systems see a need to determine who owns any copyrights in the network, the state or the private contractor.

Critics of centralized public information systems also wonder about inaccurate information. When a state disseminates information over a network, who is liable for any inaccuracies, the network manager or the state?

Effect on Agency Jobs
Computerized public information systems developed from the idea that centralized electronic access to data would benefit not only the public but also the agencies. These systems would provide more time for agencies to fulfill their primary missions and allow them to spend less time answering information requests that could be easily answered electronically. However, critics note that there is a possibility that a reduction in agency positions could result from the implementation of a network.

Cost of Access
Opponents of centralized networks are also concerned about the costs of access and how fees are set. They raise questions about the practice of government generating revenue from the sale of public information and what role the private network managers play in setting fees. They point out that state statutes often spell out specific fee schedules for access to public records and that the networks should not charge access fees in addition to the fees found in statutory guidelines.

Conclusion

Centralized electronic public information systems are a new way for states to deliver service to the public and the business community through cyberspace. With five states currently operating one-stop-shopping systems and at least three states hoping to get their systems started soon, provision of centralized electronic access to public records is a developing trend in state information delivery.

	Information Network of Kansas, www.ink.org	GeorgiaNet, www.ganet.state.ga.us/*	Access Indiana Information Network, www.ai.org, or www.state.in.us	Nebrask@ Online, www.nol.org	New Mexico Technet, www.nm.org
Administrative Code	Yes	Planned	Planned		Yes
Attorney General Opinions	Yes	Planned	Planned		Yes
Bankruptcy Filings	Yes				Yes
Bid Information	Yes, also purchasing requirements	Planned, also purchasing requirements	Yes		Yes, including federal bids and contracts
Bill Full Text	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Bill Monitoring	Yes	Yes	Yes
Bill Status / History	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Campaign Finance Data	Yes		General campaign finance info available
Chamber of Commerce Information	Yes, legislative testimony, legislative reports and calendar available				Yes, greater Albuquerque members available
Coporation Listings / Information	Yes	Yes, also initial corporate filings	Planned	Yes	Yes
Court Dockets	Yes	Planned	Planned	Planned	Yes, five juridictions available
Court Records	Yes, four county courts available		Planned	Yes, limited	Yes, five jurisdictions available
Driver's License Records	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, including organ donor status
GIS Data	Yes		Planned
Governor's Orders		Planned
Internet Access	Yes, including e-mail	Yes, including e-mail	Yes, including e-mail	Yes, including e-mail	Yes, including e-mail
Job Listings	Yes	Planned	Yes		Yes
Legislative Calendar	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Legislative Journals	Yes		Yes
Legislative Directory	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Legislative Catalogues	Yes			Yes	Yes, including document delivery service
Motor Vehicle Registration Records	Yes, including titles and liens		Yes, including titles and liens	Planned	Yes, including on-line registration at the dealer
Real Estate Records	Yes	Planned, including maps	Yes, limited	Planned, including title and lien searches	Yes
State Statutes / Code	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
State University and College Information	Yes		Yes	Yes	Yes
UCC Searches	Yes, also on-line filing capability		Planned	Yes
Other information Currently Available or Planned	Bd. of Tax Appeals docket, list of unclaimed property, League of Municipalities and Assoc. of Counties info., Bd. of Nursing database, certified day-care centers, occupational wage info, Bd. of Healing Arts database	Planned: Notices of agency public meetings; Public Service Comm. rulings, directory of govt.  Available: kiosks providing travel info.	List of abandoned property, licensed day care and nursing homes, sex-offender registry, election info, welfare funding and spending data, tourist info, state grant info, Dept. of Natural Resources info  Planned: Electronic filing projects	Effective Finance Statements; workers' comp. info, state tax forms, list of sales tax permits issued, database of statutory and tax liens, state govt. directory	Foreign and border trade databases, electronic state tax filing, business permitting and licensing, electronic oil and gas tax filing, Albuq. water billing info, census data, links from hospitals to organ donor program, tech. transfer data

*This information is accurate as of October 1, 1996.

	Information Network of Kansas	GeorgiaNet	Access Indiana Information Network	Virginia Information Providers Network	Information Network of Arkansas
Cite of Enabling Act	Kansas Statutes Annotated sec. 74-9301 to 74-9309 (1990).	Georgia Code sec. 50-25-2 to 50-25-13 (1990).	Indiana Code sec. 5-21-1-1 to 5-21-5-3 (1994).*	Virginia Code Annotated sec. 9-350 to 9-361 (1996).	Arkansas Code Annotated sec. 25-27-101 to 25-27-105 (Michie 1995).
Members on Governing Board; How Selected	10: 1) pres. of Kansas Inc.; 2) sec. of state; 3) & 4) CEOs of exec. Branch agencies, app'ted by gov.; 5), 6) & 7) from user associations, app'ted by gov.; 8) librarian of member library, app'ted by gov.; 9) member of bar assoc., app'ted by gov.; 10) dir. Of Division of Info. Systems and Communications (nonvoting)	5: 1) app'ted by lt. gov.; 2) app'ted by speaker of H. of Rep.; 3), 4) & 5) persons knowledgeable about data processing operations and needs of the political subdivisions of the state, app'ted by gov.	16: 1)-6) from user community, app'ted by gov.; 7) gov.'s designee; 8) lt. gov. or designee; 9) state budget dir. or designee; 10) exec. dir. (nonvoting); 11) comm. of Dept. of Admin. or designee; 12) rep. from coordinating unit; 13) & 14) reps. (D and R) app'ted by speaker (nonvoting); 15) & 16) sens (D and R) app'ted by pres. pro tempore (nonvoting)	11: 1) sec. of admin.; 2) dir. of the Council on Info. Manag.; 3)-5) CEOs of exec. branch agencies, app'ted by gov.; 6) & 7) members of state bar, app'ted by gov.; 8)-10) from user associations, app'ted by gov.; 11) app'ted by gov. from a list provided by the state librarian	12: 1) pres. of Science and Tech. Auth., or designee; 2) sec. of state or designee; 3) dir. of Dep't of Finance or designee; 4) & 5) CEOs of exec. branch agencies or designees; 6)-9) from user associations, app'ted by gov.; 10) public library dir., app'ted by gov.; 11) member of bar assoc., app'ted by gov.; 12) dir. of Dept. of Computer Services (nonvoting)
Quorum; Vote to Take Action	5; 5	2; 2	7; 7	6; Not specified	6; 6
Administrative Head of Network; Other Employees; State Employees?	Network manager (either a person or corporation); May hire other employees as designated by the board; Yes (for certain purposes)	Executive director; May hire other employees as prescribed by the board; Yes	Executive director (appointed by Gov.); May hire staff as needed; No	Network manager; Not specified; Not specified	Network manager (either a person or entity); Dept. of Computer Services may provide staff under contract; Not specified
Network Authorized to Enter into Contracts in General?; with State Agencies?	Yes; Yes	Yes; Yes	Yes; Not specified	Yes; Yes	Yes; Yes
Network Authorized to Accept Gifts, Donations or Grants?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Network Authorized to Set Fees for Access to Information?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
State Agencies Required to Cooperate?	Yes	No	Not Specified	No	Yes
Network Authorized to Invest Moneys Received?	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Not Specified
Source of Funds for Network Start-up?; for Operation?	Private donations; Private donations, revenues from subscribers	"No state appropriated funds shall be used for any purpose stated in this Code section." sec. 50-25-6.	Private donations; Revenues are to be used for operating expenses	Private donations; Private donations, revenues from subscribers	Not specified; Not specified (but the board may accept gifts, donations and grants)
State to Receive Funds in Excess of Operation Costs?	Yes	Yes	Not Specified	Yes	Yes
Exempt from State Purchasing Laws?	Yes	Not specified	Not specified	Yes	Not specified
Tax Exempt?	Not Specified	Yes	Yes	Yes	Not Specified
Ownership of Network?	Not Specified	State-owned	"Neither the state nor the commission may own the Intelenet system." sec. 5-21-3-6.	Not Specified	Not Specified

* This cite is a statute authorizing the Indiana Intelenet Commission. This was existing legislation at the time the Access Indiana Information Network was established. This legislation was recently amended by SB 364 (1996) to reduce the number of governor-appointed members to four. The other two positions shall now be 1) the superintendent of public instruction or designee and 2) the director of the state library or designee.

Terry Boulanger, Director of Marketing New Mexico Technet  5921 Jefferson Ct. NE, Suite A  Albuquerque, NM 87109  505-345-6555  505-345-6559 fax  boulan@technet.nm.org  Brad Bradley, General Manager Access Indiana Information Network  ISTA Building, Suite 530  150 West Market St.  Indianapolis, IN 46204-2806  1-800-236-5446  317-233-2010  317-233-2011 fax  brad@ai.org  Sam Somerhalder, President Nebrask@ Online  1221 N St., Suite 303  Lincoln, NE 68508  1-800-747-8177  402-471-7810  sam@nol.org  Betty Dillehay, State Data Administrator Virginia Information Providers Network  1100 Banks St., Suite 901  Richmond, VA 23219  804-225-3622

Thomas M. Bostick, Executive Director Harry Herington, Network Manager GeorgiaNet  100 Peachtree St., Suite 1440  Atlanta, GA 30303-3404  404-651-8690  404-657-7956 fax  Jeff Fraser, Network Manager Information Network of Kansas  106 Capitol Tower  400 Southwest 8th  Topeka, KS 66603  1-800-4KANSAS  913-296-5059  913-296-5563 fax  Michael Hipp, Director, Department of Computer Services Information Network of Arkansas  One Capitol Mall  P.O. Box 3155  Little Rock, AR 72203-3155  501-826-5536