NY State Senate Testimony

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is John Wonderlich. I am the Policy Director of the Sunlight Foundation. The Sunlight Foundation is a non­partisan nonprofit dedicated to using the power of the Internet to catalyze greater government openness and transparency.

In my testimony, I would like to offer my organization's perspective on transparency in legislatures, as it has developed through our experience with the United States Congress. I will explain the Open House Project, a collaborative reform effort I have led at Sunlight, describe some of the Sunlight's reform and oversight work, and apply what we have learned about transparency in Congress to suggest a checklist for legislative transparency.

At the heart of all of the Sunlight Foundation's work is a deep appreciation for the transformational power of online technology. Our pairing of technology with government reform is visible in our organization, which includes a sophisticated technology team, Sunlight Labs, and also in the policies we promote.

Sunlight's core principles, articulated in the document I’ve submitted along with my testimony, also reflect our technological approach. Those principles, stated briefly, are: public means online, transparency is government's responsibility, and data quality and presentation matter.

Those principles result from our belief that only a transparent government can be a legitimate and competent government, and that excessive secrecy breeds waste, corruption, and mistrust.

As Sunlight began to pursue our reform agenda with Congress, we quickly realized that the information we wished to free was valuable to stakeholders in a variety of contexts. The public we serve is comprised of a broad coalition, including journalists, bloggers, web developers, librarians, businesses, advocacy organizations, government employees, and even Members of Congress and their staffs.

In January 2007, the Sunlight Foundation launched the Open House Project, to harness that growing community of online stakeholders, and to develop public consensus around practical technological reforms for the US House of Representatives. Organized initially around a receptive Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, the community developed a recommendations report, and has continued to grow and advocate for reform since the report's publication in May of 2007. The group operates through a blog and public listserv, and continues to host a vital transpartisan dialog on public access.

The Open House Project dialog has benefited from the participation of large number of congressional staffers, many of whom would otherwise have no official outlet for their technology concerns. As staffers have shared their views, it has become clear that our concern for the public observer of Congress should also extend to Congress itself. Members and staff work with often outdated or obsolete legacy systems that are inadequate for their needs, and struggle to gather the information that enables them to perform their legislative duties. Transparency is necessary for the public and for government officials alike, and both are ultimately disempowered without access to timely, accurate information.

The Open House Project initially developed ten transparency reforms for the US House, and in the months since the report’s release, several of the report’s recommendations have been implemented, either in full or in part. Both chambers of Congress have fundamentally changed the restrictions placed on Web use by Members of Congress. The Library of Congress is improving access to their legislative databases through the THOMAS Web site, and has been instructed by Congress to report on providing bulk access to legislative databases. Committees and Members now offer far more information online, and Congress is beginning to reexamine the way the institution’s technological authority is coordinated and organized.

While each of these reforms represents a significant change, they are ultimately incremental and slow in developing. Even as the Sunlight Foundation pursues these institutional reforms (transparency is, ultimately, governments responsibility), we are also creating databases, tools, and communities that pick 1818 N. St. N.W. ▪ Suite 410 ▪ Washington, D.C. 20036 ▪ Ph: 202-742-1520 Fax: 202-742-1524

up where government has left off. Our technology and distributed research projects set a new standard for what government should be doing on its own, and helped citizens to engage with government data in new ways.

For example, the Sunlight Foundation’s ReadTheBill.org initiative focuses public pressure on the 72 hour rule, which would require bills to be available online for 72 hours before floor consideration.

ReadTheBill.org features analysis of bills rushed through Congress, with a focus on the broad public consensus that Congress can only consider legislation legitimately when citizens and lawmakers alike have sufficient time to examine a bill's actual text.

Even though the proposal for this short window for public inspection has historically met with stiff resistance, we are starting to see a shift in the way Congress views public scrutiny. When the House first considered the original bailout bill last fall, Speaker Pelosi announced that the bill was available online.

House servers were promptly overwhelmed by public demand, in confirmation of what congressional leaders are coming to realize: the American public now expects the same real­time access to data that we expect as online consumers.

New standards for legislative transparency have now gained enough detail and technological nuance to apply generally to any legislature, and should be examined in the context of state­level disclosure reform.

The following are eight questions we believe the New York State Senate should ask: 1. Is public information online? Any data deemed public should also be available online. When disclosure requirements are fulfilled by binders in the basement of a public building, the public is served poorly. Procedural information, such as bills, committee schedules, transcripts, reports, or calendars should be reliably posted online in a timely manner, to allow Members and citizens to participate in the legislative process. Rules should require such information to be posted online by those responsible for its creation: Members, leadership, or committees.

2. Are databases accessible in bulk? Public databases should allow for advanced access through both bulk data download and programmatic interfaces (Application Programming Interfaces, or APIs).

Without this level of access, programmers and analysts are forced to examine public data through a needlessly limited viewpoint, effectively spurning complex or creative scrutiny.

3. Is public data accurate and descriptive? Legislative information must be accurate to maintain its public utility. Votes data, journals, and transcripts should accurately reflect reality, and chambers’ rules should enforce this requirement.

4. Is technological infrastructure insulated from political abuse? Legislatures’ technological infrastructure should be created and maintained by professional qualified staff, with reliable funding and insulation from political concerns. Committees for technological coordination, Inspectors General, and public advisory boards can all provide effective steps toward promoting competent technology infrastructure.

5. Is ethics disclosure sufficient? Public trust is undermined when legislatures fail to enforce the disclosure of ethics information. Financial disclosures, campaign finance disclosure, taxpayer funded expenditures, and ethics investigations should all be publicly available, in real time, and online.

6. Are individual lawmakers, committees, and leadership offices able to take advantage of online tools? Just as non­profits, businesses, and other governments can set a useful example, individual staffers and Members will often set good example if they can confidently engage online. Legislatures should provide the technological support and legal guidance necessary for online engagement to flourish.

7. Is the public well served by the legislature's disclosure? Legislatures often fail to meet even basic needs of constituents, answering questions like “Who is my representative?” or “Where can I find this 1818 N. St. N.W. ▪ Suite 410 ▪ Washington, D.C. 20036 ▪ Ph: 202-742-1520 Fax: 202-742-1524

bill?” Citizens should have a clear mechanism or contact point for transparency feedback, to help identify shortfalls, and develop better disclosure procedures.

8. Are Members and their staffs able to do their jobs? A useful proxy for public access can be Member offices themselves. If Members and staff are missing an essential piece of information, or relying on expensive subscription services to do their jobs, then citizens are certainly being shut out.

Members and staff should have a similar forum for addressing technological issues, without fear of political reprisal.

While the cultural shift happening in Congress is slow (as they adjust to each of these emergent needs), it is absolutely essential to creating a transparent government. As lawmakers post their earmark requests, append disclosure requirements to the stimulus package, or stream live video of their committee hearings, they are feeding pubic expectations, deepening the public aspect of their duties as representatives, and learning to recognize citizens as partners in oversight and legislating—a source of both political clout and of substantive assistance.

Since legislatures are organized by self­imposed rules, cultural expectations and popular pressure are especially important. Determined leaders can still waive rules, centralize power, and stifle public debate and deliberation. The best defense of a balanced, deliberative, public legislature will always come from the public, upon whose approval and trust government is built.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to answer any questions.

1818 N. St. N.W. ▪ Suite 410 ▪ Washington, D.C. 20036 ▪ Ph: 202-742-1520 Fax: 202-742-1524