The People "Like" This: The Benefit of Social Media in E-governance

Greetings and Salutations,

Welcome back to my blog for those who have been with me for the past five weeks as we continue our journey exploring e-governance and law enforcement.  Today we will be examining the phenomena that is Social Media and how it impacts government, with special attention to law enforcement agencies.  Of course when we say social media, we are referring to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc., but social media can extend to any electronic medium that fosters communication between a government entity and the people.

Social media is arguably the greatest way we communicate in both the private and public sectors.  Government institutions, private enterprise, celebrities, and everyday individuals can all have their voice heard through the use of these services.  It does not matter if you are a Koch Brother or the guy that works at the local convenient store, if you have a means to type or say it, your voice can be heard.  If you have been following my blog, you will note that I constantly reference the main benefit of social media being the transparency of government.  However, it goes beyond just that.  It is the way political candidates announce their political aspirations, yes I'm talking about you Donald Trump.  It is the way alerts can be placed to citizens of impending danger or simple traffic jams.  It can also be the way we break news.  Unfortunately, like most double edged swords, it can be used for good or evil.  It can be your best friend or worst enemy.  Government is no exception.  Like the image above demonstrates, same tool; two different purposes!  

Once it is out there……..IT IS OUT THERE!  There are no resets, recalls, just kiddings, oopses, do overs, or let's try that agains.  Social media becomes the property of the source being used and is available to the world the moment you press "send" and even after you "delete" it.  Pictures on Facebook that you upload becomes Facebook's property; read your fine print.  Gaffes made on Instagram become the property of Instagram.  Have you ever noticed that every time a popular figure says something REALLY stupid, they always delete the stupid thing from their page only to find the media was still able to recover the image or phrase for all the world to see?  We in government have to be especially careful of this because the world is always watching.  And what better news than to report a public figure doing or saying something really stupid on social media.  Whether you are President Obama or the Police Chief of a four man agency, you send it, the world knows.  This is where ethics, knowledge, training, and the establishment of policies become so crucial to e-governance.  In the video clip provided below, professors at Santa Clara University discuss this very issue concerning social media:

So let's bring this full circle back to our agency.  We are the head honcho and we have made the smart move to social media as part of our repertoire.  We want to discuss and create the rules and regulations with our IT Department concerning how it is used, and who is responsible for it.  We need to discuss the manner in which information is disseminated with our Public Information Office.  We need to establish clear guidelines for our officers/deputies by writing a standard operating procedure that addresses what they can and cannot do, EVEN ON THEIR OWN PAGES/DEVICES.  We should consult with our legal department to assist us in that area because there is case law available through the National Relations Labor Board governing this aspect.  The American Bar.org has a great summary of those rights available using this link for the .pdf.  So just keep in mind, this is a great tool and the people will "LIKE" us for it, but we must be diligent and careful in implementation so that we don't find ourselves in the "Comment Hidden Due to Low Rating" section!  Thank you for reading.  Until next time!

Gary

I Want To Be Sheriff

                                                      Happy June 21 Fellow Bloggers,

     Today I would like to talk to you all about the use of electronic communication and services such as Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook and how these services can greatly impact one's ability to effectively run for a political office; most notably sheriff, as this is primarily a law enforcement related blog.  I also want to talk about how these services empower our citizens through action and political change which is so desperately needed in our country.  This "I Want To Be Sheriff" blog will examine three current sheriff's, one from Florida, Georgia, and Texas and how they use, or not use, electronic communication to enhance or hurt their current offices.

     First, lets introduce the term E-democracy to our repertoire of "E" terms.  What is it?  E-democracy is a combination of the wordselectronic and democracy that incorporates the latest communication technology and information to promote the democratic process.  This new form of government process allows each citizen to equally participate in the democratic process through the development and creation of laws by putting all citizens on a level playing field.  It can also decide elections!  This way, you as the average citizen can effect just as much of a change in the process as the Koch Brothers or George Soros.  However, for the purpose of today's discussion, we are looking more locally to the only law enforcement position recognized by the United States Constitution; the position of Sheriff, the highest and most powerful law enforcement officer in a county. 

__________________________________________________ 

BSO Sheriff Scott Israel

     Let us first look at Broward County, Florida (Fort Lauderdale, FL for those who do not know) and we will look at Sheriff Scott J. Israel who has held his position since 2012.  The Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO) is the nation's largest fully accredited law enforcement agency.  To be Broward County's top cop, you'd have to be current with the times and be willing to get yourself out there using social media.  In order to do so, Sheriff Israel has done several things to achieve this.  First, he has an active Twitter and Instagram account which he updates almost on a daily basis to keep in personal contact with his constituents.  Second, on the BSO home page (www.sheriff.org) features a fully interactive menu including the ability to send messages to the sheriff, and while we know he does not read them all, the fact that he provides a handle to address concerns is a step in the right direction.  Also, Sheriff Israel is doing something that is a brilliant in terms of election campaigns.  Although he may run unopposed in 2016, he already has attack ads and social media campaigns touting his accomplishments and shutting down any idea that an opponent would have to run against him.  When voters go to the booth in 2016, they are likely going to have Sheriff Israel on their minds.  This keeps him current, active, and being talked about by the residents of Broward County, FL.  See the video below as Sheriff Israel discusses his community outreach program for new officers:

Sheriff makes new hires connect with community

__________________________________________________

DCSO Sheriff Lupe Valdez

     Moving on to Dallas County, Texas (Dallas, TX for those who do not know) we will look at Sheriff Lupe Valdez who has held her position since 2005.  Sheriff Valdez is one of only four female sheriff's in Texas and the only Hispanic female sheriff in the country.  Sheriff Valdez follows the e-democracy and uses it to her advantage.  She has a very active Twitter and Facebook account which is updated almost daily.  One thing she does is reach out to her community using personal touch messages which gives the impression that she cares about her constituents.  She has two-way interactive communication on the Dallas County Sheriff's Office home page found on the web at (http://www.dallascounty.org/department/sheriff/sheriff_index.php).  On her personal election campaign page, she solicits donations while getting her message out to would-be voters.  She takes a preemptive strike campaign stance by letting voters know of her accomplishments and what her future plans are which minimizes bad press.  Also, I found it interesting that the opposing party tried to play against her Hispanic heritage which not only backfired by securing her election and subsequent re-election, it gave her something "evil" to run against in her campaign process.  As long as Dallas County provides a mechanism for less affluent voters to have equal access to the democratic process, the system I believe, will work well for her in her next campaign run.

__________________________________________________

FCSO Sheriff Theodore Jackson

     Finally, we look at Fulton County, Georgia (Atlanta, GA for those who do not know) and will examine Sheriff Theodore Jackson who has held his position since 2008.  This is one sheriff who does not use e-democracy to his advantage and his position has been mired with political controversy and claims of inappropriate activities and incompetence.  Here is why I  believe he suffers.  First, he does not use any electronic communication that I could find.  So no Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.  This also means there is no personal connection to his voters or any way for him to tout his accomplishments.  There is also no direct interactive communication to his constituents on the Fulton County Sheriff's Office homepage (http://www.fultonsheriff.org) so he cannot solicit feedback or address concerns.  All communication is handled by his public information officer which is good for official media press releases, but if you want voters to trust you, personal messages like those from Sheriff Israel and Sheriff Valdez makes a big difference.  This makes Sheriff Jackson subject to political attack and very vulnerable during his next election campaign which he is expected to face several well-qualified candidates.  And right now for him, there is a slew of bad press that is being fed to Fulton county residents on an almost daily basis which he is not able to counter because he has no means to do so.

__________________________________________________

     There you have it.  Three sheriffs, two enjoying great success by following the e-democracy model, and one having a tough go at it by not doing so.  So bringing this back home to our agency.  If we are the top cop, no matter how big or small our agency, we have to be current and relevant.  In order to do so, we have to use the media that our constituents use.  Personal touches using these media outlets is a great idea and to preemptively attack potentially bad media in advance of a news outlet.  Yes it hurts, but transparency and trust is paramount in our position.  Take the wind out of their sails and put the story into context for us.  When we lack the ability to tell our side or let people know why we matter, we will find ourself as the former sheriff (or chief, commissioner, director, etc.).  Thank you for reading today, I know it was longer than usual.  Until next time.

Gary

Getting To Citizenville

Greetings and Salutations,

If you have been following my E-governance and Law Enforcement blog, you know we are starting to make strides towards getting our agency up and running in the "e-everything" world.  When I blogged last week, we started to address factors to consider prior to getting our agency online.  However, in the course of my study of public administration, I think it is important that we take a look at some real life experiences with those who have walked down this path before us and have encouraging, yet cautionary advice for those who would do the same.  This week, I want to take a brief overview of the book Citizenville authored by Gavin Newsome who is currently and most notably the Lieutenant Governor of the State of California.

Citizenville is a fairly light read about the trials and tribulations of revolutionizing government to function in the digital age and how to get citizens involved in their government.

Click Here for Gavin Newsome Tech Video on YouTube

Gavin Newsome seems to strike at the heart of the issue that government is stuck in the past with outdated thinking, but American citizens can reshape their government to make it better.  This is the very thing I have been discussing in my blog, but have narrowed my issue to law enforcement.  Citizenville covers eleven chapters that takes a look back, shows the current state of affairs, and then projects outward to what is ahead.  The book covers some issues that range from Newsome's take on Wikileaks to the controversy surrounding public figures.

In perhaps one of my favorite chapters, "Living in a Glass House," Newsome addresses the dirty truth about being a public figure and how the expectations of privacy seems to be a thing of the past.  When Newsome was the mayor of San Francisco, California, it appeared that he wanted to be as open and as transparent as possible.  As I discussed in a prior blog, transparency is the ultimate goal of e-government.  Unfortunately what the good mayor experienced was people using open information for evil and not for good.  Newsome tells of his creation in 2004 of SF Stat which was one of the most comprehensive and transparent reporting of government activity at that time.  Instead of citizens saying, "This is great and open," it was used to criticize and attack the mayor which ultimately ruined morale of the government employees and led to a state where government was afraid to put information "out there."

You can't win for losing and will be criticized as the image to the left here suggests about Newsome.  I am here to say that absolutely people will always use information for their own agenda, but we as government have to suck it up and do what is right and be prepared to explain our position.  One lesson I took away from Gavin Newsome's experience is that when putting out something like statistical information about your agency, put it into context.  For example, if you have increase overtime for law enforcement officers in relation to an uptick in crime, tell the people what is going on.  Be the first to provide the information and put it into context or else like we say in Miranda warnings, "it will be used against you in court!"

Another key factor in Citizenville is that even though we are modernizing our agency, we are still competing for stakeholders of our services.

Keep in mind, law enforcement is but one aspect of government, but people can make choices.  If you are a police chief, you are answerable usually to a mayor, commissioner, or city manager.  You are competing against yourself to keep your job because you work at will.  Remember, Citizenville encourages people to interact with their government and if your residents are unhappy, they can and will voice their concerns.  Would it not be better for the people to express their concerns to you directly through e-government where you can address the issue rather than hear about it at a commission meeting?  If you are a sheriff, you are answerable directly to the voters as it is a constitutional office.  Would you not want to know how you are doing through e-government before finding out about it at the next election?  Yet countless times, we in government bury our heads in the sand and do just enough to get by.

Perhaps the greatest point Newsome makes in Citizenville is that people nowadays are always online.  I am over 40 years old so I can remember the days when government meant standing in a line somewhere to get a service.  Today's American does not wait for anything because everything is available online at the speed of light.  Newsome brought the City of San Francisco out of the past and into the cutting edge of the future.  Granted, Gavin Newsome was the youngest mayor elected there in over one hundred years, so his youthful naiveté I'm sure played a role.  However, if he could see that everything everywhere was going digital, then younger people who only know fast, faster, and instantaneous can see it too.  I actually liked Citizenville because if you are an older citizen, you can appreciate Newsome's explanation of the change.  If you are a younger citizen, you can appreciate the direction we are headed.  As for us and our agency, we can use Citizenville as a guide.  It does not matter that it addresses city government because a law enforcement agency is exactly that, a small city in its own right.  Let's be that next great one!

Citizenville for me ranks 4.5 out of 5 stars!  It was published in 2013 by The Penguin Press.

~ Gary

Factors to Consider for E-government

Good Afternoon Everyone,

Last week when I first blogged, I began by touching on what e-governance is, the important contributions of e-government services, and its relation to enhancing law enforcement services.

I also discussed how law enforcement got from the age of "snail mail" to the creation of more advanced services, but also how objections to those services were eventually overcome.  Today, I want to touch on the important factors to consider to get an efficient and awesome law enforcement e-government service up and running; not so much from the information technology side such as coding and programming, but from the "what do we need to have in place ideology wise to kick this thing off" aspect.

As a point of reference, I will be referring to Dr. Ali Faharani's lecture on establishing an E-government framework in 2011 while he was an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California (click for lecture).  One of the most important things I learned from the lecture is that technology is not inherently democratic and it can even bring about exclusion.

Dr. Ali Faharani
University of Southern California

Normally when we think of exclusion, we might think of income inequality or race relations within the United States.  However, within the realm of technology, there is also a more subtle exclusion with regards to information and access to information.  There is, if you will, the "have and have nots" of technology and information.  This factor should be important to law enforcement agencies as any implementation of an e-government service must consider the clientele using such services.  For example, if an agency has a jurisdiction that has 60% of the population living below the poverty level, then there will likely be limited access to many e-government services.  For the purpose of this blog, we will assume that our agency has a significant enough portion of the population living above the poverty line to implement our e-government services.

So where to begin you ask?  Dr. Faharani indicates there are actually three things to first consider before our IT department hits the first keystroke of code.  First will be the democracy of our service.  This means who can participate and how do we get people to participate in government?  The second, rationalization, refers to the efficiency of our systems and how stuff will actually work.  The third is service which means what will we actually provide to our customers or stakeholders?  There are two very important goals in relation to these objectives that our agency must reach.  The first goal is setting a reasonable expectation of services.  We do not want to over promise and under deliver.  For example, if we have an online service that allows a citizen to file a complaint to the Police Chief, our service might indicate that the chief does not read each and every complaint and will get back to the complainant in 10 minutes!  The second goal is TRANSPARENCY!!!!!  Dr. Faharani suggests, and I completely agree, that e-government merely opens the door to transparency, but the agency must still strive to achieve it and not give the false appearance of transparency.  Who here has ever walked into a clear sliding glass door when it was closed?  Not only is it embarrassing, but it is quite painful!  It appeared to be open, but we found out the hard way it is just an illusion.  Law enforcement agencies have to make an extra effort to make sure that sliding glass door is really open and not just appear to be open.

Now here is where our agency must consider how people will have access to our systems.  Remember, we still have privacy concerns and legal issues always at play which we will discuss in more detail in future blogs.  If our system is limited and does not provide transparency, we will not "e-mpower" our citizens…..you like what I did there!

Jane Caldow of IBM back in 2004 developed an e-democracy model for providing services.  What she reasoned is the more passive and asynchronous a service, such as those in quadrant one like searching and viewing documents, the less engagement and influence the customer has.  Conversely, in quadrant four, services become interactive and strategic such as petitioning and consultation, allowing for citizens to have the greatest engagement and influence.  A word of caution.  Remember, we are creating e-services for a law enforcement agency, and as such, influence over our agency may be governed by case law and security concerns.  Each service provided must be evaluated accordingly.

The thing that we must take away from this phase of our implementation of e-governance is that we are providing a service.  However, factors such as our infrastructure, costs, clientele, and available resources must be considered.  Even though we are not competing for customers as you would find in the private sector, we are competing for the support, confidence, and trust of our citizens.  If we run a shoddy program that excludes many, or it does not provide any usable features, the broken trust and confidence translates into negative support at the ballot box!  That is all for this week.  Next week, I will delve further into setting up our e-government and I will start looking at various law enforcement agencies to use as comparison.  Thank you for reading, until next time!

Gary