NLPES & RACSS

Joint Fall Training Conference Notes

The Legislature of the Future-Challenges and Opportunities
September 8 - 11, 2000
Omni Austin Hotel
Austin, Texas

Track 2: Changing Technology

New Technology To Address Changes
Evaluating the Virtual Agencies
Changing Technology: Internet

New Technology To Address Changes

Saturday, September 9, 2000

Moderator: Don Williams, Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau

Speaker: Allan Smith, Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau

Panelists: Dr. Max Arinder, Mississippi Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review, Julie Valentine, Texas Senate Research Center

Summary:

Don Williams made some opening remarks which focused on the technological changes made in his own office. For example, in the past he used a phone with no "bells and whistles," a dictaphone, and a typewriter. Advances have been made which have made phones more complex with features such as voice mail. He also uses a personal computer (PC), a cell phone, and daily correspondence is made by email and fax. He noted that we can expect to see vast changes in technology over the next 25 years.

Allan Smith has been the Manager of Information Systems for the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau since 1998, and has over 31 years of experience in both the private and public sectors. He discussed who is driving technology. Legislative staff are driving it to keep up with the newest developments which creates constant demands on their time. Legislators also drive technology. In Nevada, legislators do not have district offices, and most of the offices are in their homes. He also noted the public, the press, and lobbyists drive new technology. Mr. Smith noted the following factors which have pushed technology forward: 1)Historical factors-i.e. Text which is mostly in the form of drafting bills and research 2)Campaign Reform-more reporting is needed although this factor does not affect legislative staff 3)Term Limits-this created a loss of knowledge base when long time legislators fulfill their term requirements. 4)Collaboration-there has been much sharing of information between federal and state governments and the private and public sectors. 5)Older technology is no longer supported or available. I.e. The transition from DOS to windows. One must keep up with software and hardware upgrades.

Mr. Smith addressed the technologies currently in use in Nevada and what we can expect in the future. Computer networks have emerged which are faster and capable of storing large amounts of memory. For example, data can now be stored in terra bites. The internet and intranet have made tracking bills possible. Also, Nevada’s gift shop will soon be placed online. Nevada has video conferencing and digital phone lines i.e. DSL lines which allow access to the internet at higher speeds. He sees increased development in computers, networks, the internet, and intranet. Hand held and wireless devices will continue to be developed and he also thinks we may one day see a "paperless legislature."

Julie Valentine conducts policy research for the Texas Senate. Her office answers research requests for the Senate and the Lt. Governor’s Office, which is quite a powerful office in Texas. They are also responsible for bill analysis during legislative sessions. More than 7,000 bills are drafted each session. They also publish summaries and reference books. Ms. Valentine observed that technology is viewed by some as a savior and by others as a nuisance. She labels herself as a "nontechnical" person, but respects the advances that have been made. For her purposes, she wants to know whether technological advances will improve the quality of the information they receive and whether they will improve quality and communication. Regarding the internet, Ms. Valentine cautions people to determine whether the information is current, accurate, and comprehensive. If any of these factors is missing, it can cause one to reach flawed conclusions. Finally, she noted that research, especially on the internet can be an isolating experience. She encourages people to get together and communicate about the information obtained. Brainstorming will increase questions and refine your arguments.

Evaluating the Virtual Agencies

Saturday, September 9, 2000

Moderator: Ken Levine, Sunset Advisory Commission, TX

Speakers: George Galindo and David Louw, PricewaterhouseCoopers

Summary:

Mr. Galindo and Mr. Louw defined the virtual agency as any organization that conducts agency business within the following conditions: without a physical (brick and mortar) presence, without human interaction/intervention with agency users, in a "paperless"environment, or when service delivery is through another organization. Use of a virtual agency allows for speedier delivery of agency services to users, enhanced efficiency of those services, a greater range of service delivery, and the opportunity for a more timely evaluation of the services delivered. With this in mind, the idea of the "Virtual Agency" is not new; a common use already in existence is the renewal of license plate tags.

This new environment has a variety of concerns and risks associated with it. Traditional controls are not in place as electronic controls replace physical ones, and a great deal more reliance and trust is placed on third parties performing the delivery of services. Other risks and concerns include keeping up with the changing technology and infrastructure needs, and the issues associated with privacy.

As far as evaluating virtual agencies, many of the evaluation principles remained unchanged, but there are many new elements that come into play. Traditional evaluation principles, such as identifying evaluation objectives, potential risks to those objectives and their impact, and conducting the evaluation, remain the same. However, the following are other evaluation principles that would be of concern:

Increased reliance on technical and electronic controls and processes;
Increased reliance on third party controls;
A new risk management dimension to the evaluation;
Evaluating a "moving target";
A shift in focus for evaluators from a detail/substantive testing to a process-oriented and exception-based testing; and
A shift in focus from historical activity to a focus on real-time events.

Their discussion concluded by highlighting a few of the challenges to evaluating a virtual agency. With the pace of technological advances and the rapid pace of change in the new e-conomy, the virtual agency is inevitable. The benefits of real time auditing and automated controls will change the evaluation environment and process.

Changing Technology: Internet

Sunday, September 10, 2000

Moderator: Shan Hays, Performance Audit Manager, Office of the Auditor General, Arizona

Note: The planned main speaker for the session was unable to attend the conference due to illness. The moderator expressed gratitude to Elisabeth Kersten for stepping in as a last-minute substitute, and to Michael Nugent for expanding his planned remarks.

Michael P. Nugent, Supervisor, Research and Legislation, Legislative Services Office, Idaho

Mr. Nugent began by quoting a 1967 Buffalo Springfield song: "There’s something happening here – what it is ain’t exactly clear…" He then discussed the effects and potential future effects of the Internet on the Legislature and Legislative staff. First, the legislative process was designed to be deliberative, thoughtful, and slow. In contrast, technology and the Internet push processes towards speeding up, faster and faster, and may counter the traditions of the Legislature. Is the work product was improving due to this technology – are laws suddenly better, are appropriations more well thought out?

Several potential legal problems can result from use of the Internet in the Legislature. For example, states have constitutional requirements such as 3 readings, line numbers lining up, engrossed versus printed bills, that may not have any meaning if bills are transmitted electronically among members. The Open Meeting Law and Public Records Act may create conflicts between the Legislature and the media or influential members of the public, for example when meetings are held in the virtual world or private correspondence is conducted by email.

The Internet should, in theory, increase public access to the Legislative process. But does the general public really have more access, or is it the well educated who have had access all along?

The Internet can also have unanticipated effects on staff. With the infusion of data, emails, and information, staff suddenly have more tasks to accomplish, but no more time, leading to fatigue and burnout. Even when staff leave on vacation, they may remain connected via their laptops and cell phones, and not come back recharged and refreshed.

Real time video, or even video tape, of committee sessions appears to be all good – but what if testimony in the committee (captured on video) disagrees with the minutes, or even with the wording of an enacted statute? What will the effect be in the courts?

Shan Hays, Performance Audit Manager, Office of the Auditor General, Arizona

The Internet has three major types of effect on program evaluation and performance audit agencies: effects on the way they do their research, effects on the kinds of issues they evaluate, and effects on the way they serve their own customers.

Effects on research: The Internet assists in getting background information, for example from agency websites, literature, and advocacy groups – however, evaluators should be cautious and ensure the information is accurate and up to date. The web facilitates finding out about colleagues’ projects; for example, Wyoming responded to an Arizona list serve query on prison staffing, and Arizona was able to save time on developing a method to study the cost of turnover. Email in fieldwork can be used for data transfer and surveys; and list serves, email, and web sites can facilitate finding and working with contract experts. The lack of a paper trail is the biggest potential problem for evaluators and auditors.

Effects on issues: These effects are likely in the future, but haven’t really hit yet. Agency range of service questions, such as how they plan and set priorities for putting services online, accessibility, and efficiency; legal questions, such as whether the agency can accept credit cards if it plans to offer licenses on line; and system issues such as security, capacity, and keeping up with changing technology, are among many issues that will face the evaluator in the future as agencies change the way they do business.

Finally, auditors and evaluators have already begun changing the way they offer their own services, by publishing their reports on the web, and offering other services such as Florida’s Government Accountability Reports (FGARS) and the accounting manuals Arizona posts for the use of school district and county accountants.

Elisabeth Kersten, Director, Senate Office of Research, California

Ms. Kersten focused on the Internet’s more general effects. In California, the Internet and associated technology has an enormous effect. For example, 17% of California’s electricity goes to servers in Silicon Valley. In the future, policy implications will be even greater. For example, we are already moving into a situation where industry operates without borders; since government by definition oversees a defined and bordered geographical space, its ability to effectively oversee industry is diminishing. Similarly, piracy of entertainment has already begun. A major duty of government in the US is protecting property rights and incentives to create wealth, but the Internet has made this protection far more complicated.

On the brighter side, however, the Internet, together with multimedia technology, has made some things possible that were not possible before. Teaching science and math has been helped greatly by new technology. Likewise, working with disabled students, and opportunities for people with disabilities, has been enhanced by the Internet.

The Internet offers both opportunities and risks, for the Legislature, the program evaluator, and the citizen.