The Washington Post's Ben Pershing alerts us to the latest report on Congressional websites (e.g., official .gov sites):
If you've ever had to peruse an official congressional Web site for business or pleasure, you know they're a mixed bag. Some are cutting-edge, incorporating blogs, video, podcasts and all the bells and whistles savvy surfers have come to expect. Others are basically a jumble of text and links that are rarely updated.
Periodically, the nonpartisan, nonprofit Congressional Management Foundation hands out its "Gold Mouse Awards" for the best Capitol Hill sites, and the 2007 awards came out today. The press release is here, and the lengthy report can be found here. (Unlike the Golden Globes, these awards do not appear to have been affected by the ongoing writers' strike.)
"Despite some bright spots, overall the quality of congressional Web sites continues to be disappointing," CMF says in its new report. "The most common letter grade earned by congressional Web sites in 2007 was a 'D' -- the same as in 2006. A full 41.6% of sites were substandard (D) or failing (F)."
Pathetic.
In his blog post, Pershing asks for a list of the worst websites for an award he's cleverly calling a "Gold Rat." Here's the comment I left on his post:
Gee Ben - where to begin...
They're equally bad on both sides of the aisle.
To be fair, most of the Members aren't personally to blame for such bad websites, but it's in fact the byproduct of the outdated Congressional Rules which limit a Member's use of the web. In other words, it's against the "Rules" to post YouTube videos. Heh.
Paul Blumenthal and I co-authored a chapter in the Open House Project on Member websites and the primitive rules which govern them in 2007. You can read our op-ed which ran on this issue last June here.
There's a rumor that the Ranking Member of the House Administration Committee, Vern Ehlers, is working to change these rules.
Until then, we're left with a whole bunch of Golden Rats.
Of course, that's the quality we've come to know and expect from the Factory approach.
Please. Somebody at the Capitol. Do something remarkable with your website or just communicate more effectively. Quit being sub-par and below average.
Make us believe that you actually care about your constituents. We're all watching.
Can you really afford to be mediocre? Didn't think so.
Comments
What's good?
The gold rat list aside, I'm interested in which Congressional sites are good examples of how to do it right. It seems like they haven't gotten away from the old 1.0 way of thinking...broadcast w/o engaging. One guess as to why they're so horrible...they're afraid of opening things up and engaging because of the overwhelming amount of communications (and spam) they receive, and they fear their sites will be dragged into the gutter pretty quick.
I agree that they need to enter the 21st century. They can start by deciding that they don't need to send an official, franked letter on Congressional stationery when all they need to do is reply with their thoughts and positions on whatever issue they're contacted on.
Its not just the rules
As a sys admin who manages a site that got a C+ I would disagree with
you that its the rules that are keeping many websites from maximizing
there potential. I would attribute the "pathetic" showing to two
things:
Information Control: my office wants to control the message from
start to finish and often times that means limiting the message as
well. We have the normal links to legislation, state/district
resources, tour information etc (all graded in the Golden Mouse Report)
but we lack almost all of the new media tools that seem to push others
over the top. While podcasts, embedded video, and even relatively
updated blogs and calendars would be nice (and easy to do) getting that
information vetted through our office is a timely process that often
leads to a "canned feel" that leaves a lot to be desired - not to
mention getting the boss in front of camera or a microphone to record
those pieces of media is tough. If your boss is more media friendly
(more aren't then are) it might be slightly easier to get some of this
material but then note my second point below to see why much of that is
left out on websites. I find that many of my colleagues in other
offices find these same roadblocks when trying to improve they're own
web spaces and integrate new technologies - not all but many.
Not enough skills and/or time: Too many sys admins and communications
directors do not respect the internet or technology in general. While I
am the sys admin in my office I am also a Legislative Aide with a
sizable issue portfolio - which means my time is heavily split and
often skewed towards my legislative duties. I do have formal schooling
and expereience in IT but I have found that unless your on a committee
or in a leadership office having someone with any IT training is very
rare and many offices don't value it as they should. This is not the
case for all offices but there are too many LC/Sys admins who happen to
be the youngest person in the office and thus given the IT
responsibility.
Lastly and not to be considered as important as the other two reasons
there is not a sense of urgency. Since the turnover in congress is so
low many don't see the need to innovate when communicating with they're
constituency - since most are multi-term incumbants who consistently
win 60% of the vote they dont feel the need to be more open and
creative in using the web.
Its funny, politicians require constant, timely, and accurate
communication with the people. The web is the best communication tool
since the invention of the printing press yet many don't place enough
emphasis or respect it enough to take advantage.
Thank you
Excellent perspective and I appreciate you sharing some of the obstacles that I may have missed.
As you may know, I was a former Comm Director for Congressman Jack Kingston who made effective communication a top priority with his staff.
Clearly, we have many obstacles to bridge in this battle and it's not going to happen overnight.
limitations to innovative congressional websites
i agree, there are a lot of limiting factors. in addition to the ones you pointed out, the franking commission also places a lot of rules on wha websites can and can't do. in order to get a winning website, you are basically required to break the law. That's what we had to do in order to get our golden mouse this year.
another limiting factor is the restrictions on web technology because of budget and availability. there are only a few companies who have overcome the stringent security restrictions required for congressional websites (as well as other sorts of red tape). even if a staff member had the technical knowledge to put up a drupal site, for instance, we don't have a server available to install it on.
Stay tuned David
"Please. Somebody at the Capitol. Do something remarkable with your
website or just communicate more effectively. Quit being sub-par and
below average."
Give us just a few more weeks. We're getting ready to raise the bar a bit ;)
Adfero makes crap web sites
Adfero makes crap web sites and they're the main vendor on the Hill.
Post new comment