From: Mustafa Akgul (akgul@Bilkent.EDU.TR)
Date: Tue 24 Sep 2002 - 14:22:16 EEST
From: "Dan Jellinek" <dan@headstar.com>
To: <egovbulletin@headstar.com>
Subject: E-Government Bulletin: 09 September 2002
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:54:46 +0100
* E-GOVERNMENT BULLETIN.
The Email Newsletter On Electronic Government,
UK And Worldwide.
* ISSUE 122, FRIDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 2002.
Please forward this free service to colleagues
so they can subscribe by sending a blank email to
egb-html-subscribe@headstar.com
for our text + HTML version, or
egovbulletin-subscribe@headstar.com
for the plain text only version.
- full details at the end.
We never pass on email addresses.
For further information, an online archive
and our privacy policy see:
http://www.headstar.com/egb
* NOTE: As a navigation aid to visually impaired people and
others using screen readers, all headings begin with an asterisk
and end with a full stop.
* CONTENTS.
Section one: News.
High-tech infrastructure for deprived estate
- Newham project to launch in November.
Audit system 'sends out wrong message'
- 'uncertain' ratings could hit staff motivation.
New group scrutinises open source software
- senior civil servants swap intelligence.
A vote for Scottish youth
- elections for online 'parliament.'
Bush drafts cybersecurity policy
- public agencies to be held accountable.
News in brief: Email crackdown continues in Liverpool; Flexible working debate; Everybody online;
Parents explore technology.
Section two: debate report - VoxPolitics.
Participation and reality: Dan Jellinek reports from a meeting convened to examine how technology can be
used to help revitalise democracy.
Section three: opinion - e-democracy.
Beyond government: third party web sites have a key role to play in generating and channeling public debate
on policy issues, says David Brake.
Section four: international - US security.
Brotherliness and bunkers: William Mead discovers that information sharing is still the key barrier to
strengthening US homeland security.
[contents ends.]
* SPONSORED NOTICE: PRACTICAL POINTERS ON
IMPLEMENTING E-GOVERNMENT
>From LexisNexis Butterworths Tolley, publishers of Standardisation of PFI Contracts for the OGC, comes a
new title on Local Government Contracts and Procurement with a specific chapter on e-government. Written
by Rosemary Mulley of Nabarro Nathanson, together with leading local authorities, the e-government
section provides practical advice on legal and commercial considerations, CRM databases, risk management
and procurement guidelines.
To purchase your copy of the book/online resource, with case studies, sample contracts and model clauses,
call the government sales team on 020 7347 3538. Alternatively order online at
http://www.localgovernmentdirect.co.uk
You may also set up no-obligation trials to other PFI titles on our list here.
[Sponsored notice ends.]
* SECTION ONE: NEWS.
* HIGH-TECH INFRASTRUCTURE FOR DEPRIVED ESTATE.
An initiative to create the UK's most advanced residential interactive television infrastructure and services is
set to launch at a deprived Newham housing estate in November after months of delay, Newham council
confirmed this week.
The Carpenters Estate consists of 750 homes, over half of which are in tower blocks. The estate is in
Stratford Ward, which is among the most deprived wards in the UK. It is estimated that almost 80 per cent
of the estate's residents are from ethnic minorities.
When the 'Carpenters Connect' project launches, selected residents on the estate will receive state-of-the-art
set top boxes fed by a high bandwidth connection (see http://www.newham.org.uk/wired). Residents have
already had the chance to become involved in a community television programme-making project run by the
Media Trust (http://www.mediatrust.org). Other features will include everything from interactive public
services to online gaming.
Partners in the multimillion pound project include infrastructure providers NeosNetworks and MASE, set
top box manufacturer PACE, and Microsoft. Early problems encountered included trouble with rats chewing
through wiring, after unusually large numbers came into the estate after being disturbed by the nearby
construction of the Stratford high-speed European rail link.
Funding for the scheme was won from the Department for Education and Skills' 10 million pound 'Wired up
Communities' scheme. The scheme is also set to fund six other, mainly web-based, community networking
projects, in the Kensington area of Liverpool; Blackburn; East Manchester; Alston Moor and Brampton in
Cumbria; and Framlingham in Suffolk. For details see:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/wired
* AUDIT SYSTEM 'SENDS OUT WRONG MESSAGE'.
The Audit Commission's system for rating local authorities' e-government work could be making it more
difficult for councils to engage staff and citizens in new projects, according to the latest council to be
audited.
Tewkesbury Borough Council (http://www.tewkesburybc.gov.uk) is among around 15 per cent of local
authorities whose e-government plans have so far been rated as showing 'poor' or 'uncertain' prospects for
improvement (http://fastlink.headstar.com/tewk). According to the council, the ratings system itself could
have a negative effect on performance. "'Uncertain' gives the wrong message - we'll certainly improve," said
Tewkesbury's director of resources Peter Antill. "But this could make it difficult to motivate staff and sell e-
government to the public."
Furthermore, the whole way e-government projects are viewed is skewed towards urban areas, according to
Phil Claridge of Tewkesbury's e-government team. "The feeling people have is that there is a 'one size fits
all approach' to e-government, based on what urban areas do. For example, you hear a lot about kiosks.
Kiosks are a good thing for urban areas but would be a waste of time in Tewkesbury, which has a dispersed
population," Claridge said.
Ironically, the Audit Commission scrapped the old ratings last year in an effort to avoid stigmatising
councils that perform less well. The commission says the new ratings, which reflect how well local
authorities implement Best Value principles, are supposed to have a more positive impact. "We don't want to
create a self-fulfilling perception with these lower ratings," said a commission spokesperson.
Previously, future prospects for improvement were rated as 'no', 'unlikely', 'probably', and 'yes'. The new
categories are 'poor', 'uncertain', 'promising', and 'excellent'. Around 50 local authorities have been assessed
under the new scheme.
* NEW GROUP SCRUTINISES OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.
A new government special interest group on open source software was convened last week, bringing
together senior civil servants and representatives of local government to share intelligence about projects,
products and suppliers.
The group, which will reconvene four times a year, is chaired by Mick Morgan, internet services technical
manager at the Office of Government Commerce (OGC - http://www.ogc.gov.uk). According to Morgan,
government departments share some core concerns about open source, and are hungry for information.
"They are particularly concerned about how open source will be supported, but they also need more
information about suppliers and the costs of open source," he said.
In particular, departments want to know how to offset the costs of transition from proprietary to open source
software against the savings that will come from sharing knowledge and applications across departments,
Morgan said. These calculations are complicated because many departments source their software through
service contracts with third party suppliers.
Although at present information is flowing mainly in one direction – from the OGC outwards - Morgan
hopes the group will establish more of a dialogue between departments and OGC and among departments.
Although the project is led by OGC and the Office of the e-Envoy (http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk), local
government is represented by SOCITM (http://www.socitm.gov.uk) and IDeA (http://www.idea.gov.uk).
* A VOTE FOR SCOTTISH YOUTH.
In early October, 15,000 young people from the Scottish Highlands will cast electronic votes for candidates
for Highland Youth Voice, an online parliament with 75 seats that debates health, crime, education and
transport issues and has regular consultations with the Scottish Parliament.
Candidates were nominated earlier this week by 29 secondary schools in the Highlands, following initial
election processes at each school. Highland Youth Voice (http://www.highlandyouthvoice.org) recently held
a debate on how to increase youth involvement in sports activities and will next tackle crime and transport
issues.
The organisation, which is sponsored by government and health service agencies and supported by the
International Teledemocracy Centre at Glasgow's Napier University (http://itc.napier.ac.uk), has previously
addressed Scottish national conferences on health and culture issues and met with members of the Scottish
Executive.
* BUSH DRAFTS CYBERSECURITY POLICY.
The US federal government this week unveiled plans to hold public agencies accountable for network and
information security and to look into increasing the amount of cross-agency purchasing and management. At
the state and local level, the document encourages the introduction of security programs, awareness audits
and standards.
The draft policy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberstrategy-draft.pdf) is intended to reduce the
nation's vulnerability to "deliberate, malicious disruption" caused by internet hackers and viruses. The policy
document draws a clear link between tackling these threats and those posed by terrorism.
The draft was drawn up following town hall consultation with citizens, academics and representatives of
public and private sector organisations. Another eight town hall meetings are scheduled to take place around
the country and comments on the document can also be sent by email to
feedback@who.eop.gov
NOTE: See also 'Brotherliness and bunkers', section four, this issue.
* NEWS IN BRIEF:
* CRACKDOWN CONTINUES: Liverpool City Council is to continue 'indefinitely' its experiment to
restrict the use of internal email by its staff on a Wednesday, as a means of focusing attention on how email
should and should not be used. The move was controversial when it was introduced in July (see E-
Government Bulletin, 22 July 2002) but Liverpool executive director Phil Halsall told E-Government
Bulletin this week that initial trials had proved successful.
* FLEXIBLE WORKING: E-Government Bulletin publisher Headstar, in association with the Public Policy
Forum think-tank, is running an online debate on teleworking and flexible working in the public sector from
30 September to 4 October, aimed at producing a 'top ten' list of tips for successful teleworking. It's free to
take part. If you are interested, please send your name, job title and email address to:
telework@headstar.com
* EVERYBODY ONLINE: Two hundred residents in Brannel, Cornwall accessed the internet, used
webcams and took digital photographs from their local community centre last week as part of 'Everybody
Online', a national project to increase access to technology in disadvantaged communities. The project is run
by Citizens Online:
http://www.citizensonline.org.uk
* PRACTICAL PARENTING: An initiative to help parents feel more involved with their children's
education and keep them up to date with new technologies is being launched in London next week. The
'parents online' week, run by the Department of Education and Skills, will allow parents and their children
access to computers in schools, libraries and UK Online Centres across the country from 30 September to 4
October:
http://www.parentsonline.gov.uk
[Section one ends.]
* SPONSORED NOTICE: IDEA E-CHAMPIONS NETWORK
FIRST CONFERENCE – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
- Thursday 26 September, QEII Conference Centre, London
There's still time to book your place at the IDeA's first-ever annual conference and exhibition for its e-
champions network. This one-day event will examine, from international perspectives, how e-government
transforms public services, organisations, employment and social inclusion. Delegates will have the chance
to hear e-government experts from the USA, Italy, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, the States of Jersey and the
UK.
Every authority in the e-champions network is eligible for two free places. Additional places are available
for 90 pounds + VAT per delegate.
To book, visit http://www.idea.gov.uk/events/e-champions or email idea@confpeople.co.uk or phone 01323
637701
[Sponsored notice ends.]
* SECTION TWO: DEBATE REPORT
- VOXPOLITICS.
PARTICIPATION AND REALITY.
by Dan Jellinek dan@headstar.com
E-democracy experts, politicians, civil servants and academics were among the crowd at a packed meeting
convened earlier this month by the online campaigns body VoxPolitics to debate the government's new
consultation paper on e-democracy (see http://www.edemocracy.gov.uk).
The technology writer and commentator Bill Thompson opened the meeting by saying the government
needed to start by looking at how we can revitalise democracy, and then look at how technology might be
able to help with bits and pieces, rather than starting by assuming technology would itself be able to
revitalise democracy.
Sian Kevill heads the BBC's New Politics Initiative, which has been tasked with drawing together elements
of the BBC's output in innovative new ways to refresh its political coverage, particularly for a younger
audience.
She told the meeting that the current widespread failure of large parts of society to engage in or show any
interest in the democratic process was largely due to a feeling of powerlessness on behalf of individuals.
"People ask 'what can I do on my own? Nobody will listen to me.' They also don't know how to begin to
engage with the government or politicians. And finally, they feel nothing would happen anyway," she said.
Broadcasters and in particular the BBC could play a key role in addressing some of these problems, Kevill
said. For example, they could help explain in simple terms what people can do to engage with the system;
and they could tailor more of their output to addressing people's needs and wishes, as determined by a
continual process of public consultation.
Internet consultant David Brake told the meeting that unofficial outlets for public debate are just as
important as official ones (see also section three, this issue, where Brake develops this theme). In particular
he said 'weblogs' – the free-form, interactive online diaries that have become something of a craze in recent
years – demonstrated that the web was becoming the natural home to unlimited freedom of expression.
Brake runs his own acclaimed weblog at http://blog.org
Another debater pointed out that it is not just brand new technologies that can be used to revitalise
democracy, but 'nearly-new' technologies such as telephone call centres as well. "We need to think not so
much in terms of e-democracy, as multi-channel democracy or modernising government", said Rhion Jones
of Dialogue Data Management.
The issue of webcasting of democratic meetings (see also E-Government Bulletin, issues 120 and 121) was
raised by Mathew Jellings of UKCouncil. He said webcasting with an interactive element was useful as it
gave people a chance to maintain their anonymity and allow them to couch questions in their own time,
putting less pressure on people than if they were attending a council meeting in person.
Richard Stubbs of Newham Online said one of the difficulties with any online policy consultation with
government was the fact that government's view of what had happened when in a policy debate tended to be
spun to fit in with their own political imperatives.
"The government spins, it reinvents the past. What guarantee is there that when an online policy debate has
taken place, history will not be reinvented by the government, and that the policy process is and will always
be a shared reality?"
This point was answered in part by Professor Stephen Coleman of the Hansard Society, who pointed out e-
democracy was actually not about government at all, but about Parliament.
Last year Coleman, with fellow academic Jay Blumler, mooted the concept of an 'online civic commons', a
new independent virtual debating and consultation chamber aimed at boosting public input into democracy
(see `Realising democracy online' at: http://www.citizensonline.org.uk/publications.shtml).
This radical concept will be among many that civil servants and ministers will now ponder as the
consultation period on the government's first e-democracy green paper draws to a close at the end of next
month.
[Section two ends.]
* SPECIAL NOTICE: E-DEMOCRACY EXCHANGE.
The publishers of E-Government Bulletin are hosting the e-Democracy Exchange in London on 19
November to discuss the use of technology to engage the public in the democratic process.
Speakers include Dr Ken Ritchie, chief executive, Electoral Reform Society; Peter Livesey, assistant
director of e-democracy, Office of the e-Envoy; David McElhinney, executive director, Liverpool City
Council; Alan Winchcombe, electoral services manager, Swindon Borough Council; James Crabtree, The
Work Foundation; and Dan Jellinek, editor of E-Government Bulletin.
Bulletin readers can register at a 50 per cent discount by writing the word 'bulletin' after their surnames on
the registration form at:
http://www.electronic-government.com/e-democracy.htm
[Special notice ends.]
* SECTION THREE: OPINION
- E-DEMOCRACY.
BEYOND GOVERNMENT.
by David Brake
It is gratifying, with the publication of the new consultation paper on e-democracy, to see the government
expressing an interest in using new technologies not just for e-voting but as a way of involving the public
more broadly in the democratic system.
If new technologies are to have a positive effect, however, it is not sufficient merely to provide an email
address or website for each parliamentary sub-committee.
A three stage process is required. First, people need to be guided to the places where their participation will
count. Second, they need to understand how what they say makes a difference (and how, in some cases, it
may not). And third, to break through the atmosphere of apathy and cynicism that characterises many
people's attitude to the democratic process, they need to be shown repeatedly how ordinary people working
within the system are able to make a difference.
Imagine for a moment you are an entrepreneurial Scot interested in encouraging local businesses to recycle
more. You might want to contact your local council, and you could write to your MP but would you have the
time to research the position of the Scottish Assembly? The regional development board? The European
Union? The DTI? How much money do these bodies have to spend in your area, how difficult will it be to
get their attention and how likely are they in the end to get involved?
Faced with such complexities is it any wonder that people interested in tackling a problem look instead to
single issue organisations like Greenpeace to represent their interests.
While naturally enough e-democracy campaigners want to proclaim successes, these are hard to find. Trials
of postal ballots have had much more effect on voter turnouts than experiments with e-voting.
The Number 10 website's take on e-consultation (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page598.asp) is that
if you make an e- petition and gather 300 signatures, you will get a mention of your petition on the site and a
brief response from the relevant department. Unfortunately, the website doesn't actually let browsers know
what the original petition was, so you can't even rely on it to give free publicity to your cause. There have
only been six such petitions in the past 17 months.
At present, potential participants have to figure out the legislative system for themselves to determine when
and where they can be consulted on the issues they care about. Where feedback is possible, it is not clear
whether anyone with decision-making power is listening, and if they are how important an individual's view
is compared to the views of corporations or lobby groups.
What should the government do about this? Well, the 'life episodes' approach of UK Online is certainly the
right idea. As well as providing information structured in the traditional form -"here is where you can
provide feedback to the draft Communications bill CM 5508-I" - the government could guide the citizen
through the process using a simple expert system - "What aspect of government policy are you interested in?
Local government is responsible for X, your MP is responsible for Y, Europe has this policy - and you can
reach them all this way."
While it is laudable that the government is considering running its own online message boards across a
broad range of sites to facilitate consultation, I fear this would put them in an impossible position, as the
difficulties experienced with UK Online's Citizenspace debating area have already proven.
They would be considered irresponsible if they failed to monitor the message boards to ensure that obscene,
racist and other 'difficult' speech is purged from their site, but this can easily be presented by others as the
government "censoring free speech". It also means that the government will tend to concentrate on its own
discussion groups and ignore thriving discussions happening elsewhere.
I would suggest that the government instead encourages third party sites to set up their own debates on a
given subject, links to them directly from its own pages and participates directly if the number of
participants exceeds a certain threshold. As a service to the public (and to cover itself) it could label the
discussions it links to as either 'moderated', for BBC-style moderation; 'lightly moderated' for lighter
moderation which only removes the most offensive stuff but might allow swearing for example; or
'unmoderated'. It could also give browsers a rough idea of how busy a particular forum is, and whether it is
merely being monitored by the government or whether they are participating.
It should also always make clear who from the government is either reading the boards directly or reading
summaries, and what their powers are. And when a decision is made and online discussion helped to inform
that decision, it is vital that this information is also highlighted in whatever report is published.
The policy consultation asks whether key individuals in government responsible for a given policy should be
individually addressable. While this is superficially appealing, it risks over-loading the people responsible. It
also ironically reduces openness and transparency as messages sent directly to the government can't be seen
or discussed by other interested parties. Of course there may still be a place for anonymous contributions
(and people can always post anonymously to message boards) but it is best where possible that all
contributions to a debate can be read by all participants.
Of course, the "solution" to e-participation doesn't lie largely with government, since the public by and large
doesn't trust the government to deliver it. For e-participation to become widely valued, it needs to be well-
signposted by existing media outlets.
Organisations like the BBC and newspapers like the Guardian could have an important role to play here in
providing a more complete guide to the political process than the government could provide. They could
guide people wanting to make a difference to the right body - whether this meant using the government's
own process or joining (or forming) a pressure group. 'CitizensConnection.net'
(http://www.citizensconnection.net) from the independent educational organisation Common Purpose is an
excellent example that is already up and running.
The government's e-democracy initiative could consider itself a success when independent third parties
started suggesting it would be more effective to participate in online debate than to take to the streets. And if
people found that an easier route to existing systems of consultation still didn't result in change, they might
be more willing to push for the kind of broader democratic reform that cyber-utopians crave.
NOTE: David Brake http://davidbrake.org is a journalist and an Internet consultant specialising in the public
and voluntary sectors. He manages a weblog at http://blog.org
[Section three ends.]
* SPECIAL NOTICE: E-ACCESS BULLETIN
- THE NEWSLETTER ON ACCESSIBILITY.
The Disability Discrimination Act means ensuring accessibility of
web sites is a legal as well as a moral obligation for public and
private sector bodies.
Our sister publication E-Access Bulletin delivers news, features and
opinion about overcoming the digital access barriers faced by the
visually impaired community, in a free monthly email.
To subscribe send an e-mail to eab-subs@headstar.com with
'subscribe eab' in the subject header. Or see:
http://www.e-accessibility.com
[Special notice ends.]
* SECTION FOUR: INTERNATIONAL
- US SECURITY.
BROTHERLINESS AND BUNKERS.
by William Mead wfmead@hotmail.com
Experts from the CIA, National Security Agency, Department of Defense and the Department of Justice
came together last month in "City of Brotherly Love", Philadelphia, to consider information sharing and US
security (http://www.cesfederal.com/ishs).
One might have expected a sense of enhanced homeland security to ooze from every presentation, but
instead one heard threaded throughout the sessions phrases like 'bunker mentality', 'interagency hard-sell',
'mandated standards', 'agency stovepipes', 'no interoperability among first responders', 'lack of integration',
'no media coordination', and 'widespread critical infrastructure vulnerability'.
Stephen Gale, Director of Organizational Dynamics for the University of Pennsylvania, propounded two
chilling exercise scenarios. He and three colleagues were granted access to "a building" with operational
control over electrical power data systems at a critical infrastructure point. He said: "Within 30 minutes,
with nominal computer skills, we could have shut down the entire eastern seaboard electrical grid for two
years." Dr Gale said the real nightmare of the war against terrorism is that 90 per cent of the US state's
vulnerabilities are not under government control, with some multi-national and foreign-owned.
Dr Gale's second scenario involved the coordinated bombing of selected chemical cars within a train that
alone would constitute a "spill", but together could produce a highly toxic gas plume. Such an incident could
easily be accomplished since most chemical cars are lined up for delivery according to where they are going,
not what is in them. Jeff Gerald, technical manager of the Homeland Security Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstration (http://www.homelandsecurityactd.org), eerily reproduced this scenario in a
documentary style presentation that sent chills throughout the assemblage. "It's ironic to me", said Gerald
"that the title of this conference, information sharing, presents both the problem and the solution".
Seventh District Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon lambasted the federal government, including
Congress, for failing to act on critical data-mining and intelligence integration proposals that he and others
wrote years before the terrorist attacks. Indeed, calls for a National Intelligence Fusion Center to "cross-
pollinate" intelligence information has been widely argued among experts within the homeland security
community of interest.
Shabtai Shavit, former head of the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, felt that "risk takers", willing to by-
pass the chain of command, served the dynamics of intelligence systems better than information systems
analysts. According to Mr. Shavit, "The flagship of intelligence is human. It is the only profession whose
task is to ask questions."
While there still seem to be significant hurdles to be overcome among the intelligence community, a ray of
hope for progress seemed to emerge in the realm of technology standards. The impetus there rests in the use
of two fundamental web architectures - XML (Extensible Markup Language) and GIS (Geographic
Information Systems).
Steven Cooper, chief information officer for the Office of Homeland Security, articulated the need to use
technologies that could provide interoperability among governments. "We don't want to invest dollars if we
already have something we can build on", said Cooper. "The tendency to duplicate existing information-
sharing efforts is a major risk facing hundreds of agencies at all levels of government, as they race to
connect the dots. It doesn't make sense".
Susan Kalweit of the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) noted that GIS is "a natural"
for mapping vulnerabilities, identifying critical infrastructure and coordinating first responder activities.
"The problem is that with 9/11 we can no longer merely promote spatial data integration", said Kalweit. "We
must mandate it".
The conference's Training and Education track found that 'First responders' to an emergency - local state and
emergency services nearest to an incident - can draw on a plethora of training and educational opportunities
provided by federal agencies.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, for example, has developed comprehensive training
programs for homeland security awareness, critical incident management and response efforts
(http://www.atf.treas.gov/training/arsonex.htm). The Joint Military Intelligence College
(http://www.dia.mil/Jmic) has also established a virtual university architecture that provides a full spectrum
of "anytime, anywhere" collaborative environments for community homeland security training.
The track on 'Critical information needs of the first responder' was the most crucial of the conference yet
raised the most cause for concern.
This was because, although emergency management agencies throughout the nation are working hard to
prepare responders for the next terrorist attack in the areas of data flow, training, mutual aid agreements and
operations support, there was a profound absence of leadership from the federal agencies assembled. The
states, cities, counties and municipalities are struggling with the real work of homeland security almost
entirely on their own.
The results of a survey of state homeland security directors conducted by Kendra Stewart of Eastern
Kentucky University showed a majority of the respondents listing "the lack of federal direction as a major
factor limiting their state's response to 9/11."
The National Governors Association recently issued a brief, State's Homeland Security Priorities
(http://fastlink.headstar.com/nga), outlining several strategic priorities and issues of concern. Among those
cited that have direct federal implications were state input into the National Homeland Security Strategy;
coordinating efforts by all levels of government; adequate wireless spectrum; rebuilding the nation's public
health system to address 21st Century threats; adequate federal funding; protection of sensitive security
information; secure ports of entry and integrating federal command systems into existing state and local
incident command systems.
The current deadlocked status of the legislation which the President has proposed to create a new
Department of Homeland Security (see http://www.govexec.com/homeland) does not sufficiently explain
the absence of leadership by the federal government in ameliorating these critical issues.
NOTE: William Mead is a web developer and e-government columnist for the American Society for Public
Administration (http://www.aspanet.org).
[Section four ends.]
* HOW TO RECEIVE E-GOVERNMENT BULLETIN.
To subscribe to this free monthly bulletin as an HTML attachment
email
egovbulletin-subscribe@headstar.com
or for the plain text version email
egovbulletin-subscribe@headstar.com
To unsubscribe from the HTML version email
egb-html-unsubscribe@headstar.com
and to unsubscribe from the text version email
egovbulletin-unsubscribe@headstar.com
For further information on subscription, including how to
subscribe or unsubscribe from an alternative email
address and how to find out if an
particular address is subscribed, see:
http://www.headstar.com/egb/subs.html
Please send comments on coverage or leads to
Dan Jellinek at: dan@headstar.com
ISSN 1476-6310
* COPYRIGHT NOTICE.
- Copyright 2002 Headstar Ltd.
Regular circulation or reproduction of the bulletin by third parties is forbidden. Properly
accredited articles (including subscription details and web address) or entire single issues of the
bulletin (including this notice) may be forwarded to individuals or groups of people as long as it
is made clear that to receive a regular copy, people must subscribe individually.
For queries about article reproduction, syndication or other copyright issues please email
copyright@headstar.com
* PERSONNEL
- EDITORIAL.
Editor - Dan Jellinek dan@headstar.com
Deputy editor - Phil Cain phil@headstar.com
Features editor - Derek Parkinson derek@headstar.com
Reporter - Tamara Fletcher tamara@headstar.com
- ADVERTISING.
advertising@headstar.com
A searchable archive of our back-issues can be found on our web site:
http://www.headstar.com/egb
[Issue ends.]
