"Webmaster(s)" MLIS
Department of Legislative Services
90 State Circle
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Joint Advisory Committee on Legislative Data Systems
Senator Leonard H. Teitelbaum, Senate Chairperson
205 James Senate Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Delegate Thomas E. Dewberry, House Chairperson
1002 Ingleside Avenue, Lower Level
Baltimore, Maryland 21228
Re: The Assembly and the Internet -- Issues Discussed Here:
a) Transition from paper to computer
b) Efficient coding translates to efficient usage
c) Creation and Use of "Quick Quote" / "Snap Shot" field
d) Date/Time Selective Downloading
e) Fiscal Notes: When they change, the change should be evident
f) The Budget Bills: Despite their size, they can and should be managed
Sir or Madam:
As can be seen by the enclosed paper-based document, "1998 Maryland General Assembly Final Legislative Results", the Assembly's transition to the Internet has been a rich and enriching experience not only for me, but for all those people on the receiving end of my mailing list.
Everything you see in this paper document is accessible free of charge on my Internet site, http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6774 and, as has been my custom, anyone can request the contents on a computer diskette in Word Perfect format at any time for further study and analysis.
Down memory lane, there was a time I would have to take a two-hour trip down to Annapolis, spend an hour or two choosing from artificial categories having little or nothing to do with reality, and punching it all out on exceedingly slow dot-matrix printers in the basement of the Statehouse. After spending time separating the wheat from the chaff, the recycling bins (thoughtfully positioned) were usually loaded with one-half to two-thirds of paper effluence signifying nothing and serving no useful purpose. Having spent up to two hours, then gathering up 150+ pages of "final" output, spending more time using a great deal of highlighter pen, rekeying scads of data, and spending a lot of time identifying and eliminating duplication, in succeeding weeks thereafter I would be telephoning the poor harried women of Legislative Reference for status updates up to three and four times a day for the rest of the session. All that is over now. I dial up the Internet, download anything interesting, process data by macros and resort to paper and phone calls if and only if recipients can tolerate nothing less. I call only if and when I detect a "bug" on the MLIS website.
Coding Makes a Difference: It has been important to me and it is probably important to others that the status coding should easily reflect whether a bill crossed over and contain some indication of the separate history in each chamber. It is also important to differentiate what was declared "unfavorable" and what essentially "died" due to inaction.
I want to call your attention to the "Status Codes" portion of my report's discussion on the front page and how the codes are used throughout the rest of the document. The system is not perfect but I hope you can see at a glance what crossed and what didn't. By the use of bolding, it is possible to easily scan any given page of this report for legislation that got all the way through to the Governor's desk. By the use of lower case and UPPER case, you can see chamber by chamber where an entire floor was involved as opposed to where the decision was determined at the committee level.
I developed the "CWA" (crossed with amendment) and "CWO" (crossed without amendment) "shortcuts" in the olden days when I used to call Legislative Reference to mail me copies of "first readers" and then had to call them again to mail me the "third" and in many instances, it was necessary to get the "Enrolled" and call up yet again for a hard copy with a "chapter" stamp. With the "CWO" category, what eventually got to the Governor was a fait accompli and no phone calls or postage or administrative time and trouble had to be invoked. The Internet has saved filing cabinet space, too, and no more do I have to invest in red or blue binders. With the implementation of the Internet, the foregoing complications are now for the most part moot and perhaps other codes or notations should be adopted to take advantage of and further the new paperless environment.
The main utility of "CWA" and "CWO" at this point is that, especially because they are in upper case, they cause crossovers to "stick out" visually as well as psychologically. In the paper document, run your thumbnail down the first column, and see that you can easily spot the crossovers and separate them from the "unf", "wdr" and "nrc" in the first chamber committee. In a computer environment, however, other options to classify and differentiate bill statuses will be presenting themselves from year to year and even day to day. How and why conventions are adopted and implemented in the future must depend on skill levels of prevailing users, prevailing software and prevailing hardware both on your server and our PCs.
"Quick Quote", "Snap Shot", however one might describe it, a field should be established (and repeated) such that the most current and up-to-date status is encapsulated and instantly available at the opening HTM screen, as well as at the very last line of Legislative History, and generated with any "short form" or "summary" of legislative data. For example, to find out "unf 3/30" with one inquiry is certainly better than to have to scroll down several screenloads and have to figure it out. As a rule, the "quick quote" should be no longer than 15 characters. In the paper document enclosed, "CWA/nrc 4/11" on a House bill means: "Amended in the House (i.e., third reader was different from first) and crossed to the Senate. Died due to committee inaction as of the closing of the session but was not killed outright." "CWO/unf 3/30" for a House bill means "went all through House without amendment but was killed in Senate committee dated March 30th." Please refer to the paper document for more information and examples. You should also note that, in my website version of this data, a hyperlink was (easily) included where the user has the option to obtain as complete information as possible on any given bill in the event that it is desired, and my (and most of your) entire site is written in the HTML language easily constructed by elementary DOS applications. (I have developed a series of WP5.1 macros to process and compile, among other things. These are available on request for your perusal and edification.)
Once a "Quick Quote" field and system is established, a report format limited only to one- liner bill numbers, Quick Quotes, last known chamber and committee (abbreviated as always), and maybe even a "Short Form Title" (40 character shorthand form assigned by Legislative Bill Drafting), could greatly facilitate information impartment and utility of MLIS from Statehouse on down. No longer would senators and delegates be seen fumbling with 12 pages of paper for what could have been done in seven lines of data on one sheet. The printouts would then look and "feel" like they used to with the old system that everyone became comfortable with. The major difference -- and radically different major advance - - is that no one would be forced to get the data always in alphabetical order of the title. People would be able to sign in, log on and ask for any combination of date order, committee order, bill number order, or status order to name only a few. It might even be possible (see paper printout enclosed) to have a column to the left numbering the number of "records" represented. This capability would enable "point score" type evaluations right down to 11:59 pm on the last day of the session.
Date/Time Selective Downloading: One concern of those watching the legislature over the Internet is not how things are but how they have changed. It would certainly be advantageous to execute a command such that all HTM and/or RTF files different from a certain date could be selected and downloaded as a batch or group (e.g., by "ZIPping" into a downloadable archive file premised on user- defined specifics). Included of course would be new or altered fiscal notes into the same collection. Thus, while on the second Monday in January, one might obtain the HTMs and RTFs of pre-filed bills zipped together, if one were to download on the first of February, one would obtain all bills (HTM and RTF) filed since the previous download along with any fiscal notes forthcoming by that date. Someone who is following the legislature avidly could "tune in" daily for "progress" reports. Someone who "checks in" from time to time would nary "miss a beat" regardless and despite prior inattentiveness or delay.
Significant Point: There should be some kind of indication if a fiscal note has been updated after amendment. While a first reader is now coded "F", a third reader "T" and an enrolled bill "E", at the present time, it takes a certain diligence to discern that a fiscal note may have changed sometime after introduction and crossover to the second chamber. If for no other reason, the authors of the revised notes would feel better that prospective readers of their work knew they were out there.
The Budget Bill -- problematic in terms of size and problematic in terms of format -- nevertheless vitally important to the work of the General Assembly -- is of utmost importance to all concerned.
Despite its relative size, I see no reason why the "Budget Bills" cannot be released in segments (the first of which would be a Table of Contents referencing segment locations as well as the traditional page numbers). This will pose little problem to persons conversant with personal computers. Citing last year's budget bill number, SB0125.HTM (i.e., the opening screen) would remain the same, but the theoretic SB0125F, SB0125T and SB0125E (so as to parallel the notations for all other bills), could well go to SB0125F0 (table of contents), SB0125F1, SB0125F2 and so forth and so on and still stay within the confines of universally-known DOS and the interface with the universally dealt-with "Windows" 3.1, 95 or 98 notwithstanding. A few short words can easily be included at the top of each subfile such as: "SB0125 is available for download in segments. This module - SB0125F2 - is one of a series beginning with F0 and continuing through F4."
It cost the State of Maryland $3.00 in postage not to mention stationery and supplies and labor to send me a single copy of SB0125 at the end of the session. There are people who ask for the first reader, the third reader and so on and so forth as it wends its way from the House and/or Senate to the Statehouse. Multiply the $3 plus administrative costs by F, T and E versions. Multiply again by the number of people wanting copies. Making the "Budget Book(s)" available over the computer is not only smart but cost effective.
The bottom line is that the "Budget Bills" should be provided with a Table of Contents and should be available in downloadable RTF or some other readily usable format even in segments. A Table of Contents and division into computer-friendly portions need not be deemed "official" nor enacted into law along with the complete document. A simple disclaimer can be added at the beginning of any portion. It is my understanding that the United States Supreme Court routinely releases decisions bearing annotations by clerks that are highly useful however they are universally held NOT to be binding, controlling or citable. Why can't the State of Maryland's "budget book" be treated in the same (logical and cost effective) manner?
To wit:
SB125 - Budget Bill (Fiscal Year 1999) - not in computer format - 285 paper pages
Examples of other, lengthy bills from the 1998 session converted to RTF format and made easily downloadable by an average personal computer (file size after conversion to Word Perfect 5.1 for DOS):
SB1 Public Utility Companies - 2,250 MB - 363 paper pages
SB84 Care Entities - Health Care Treatment and Benefit Determinations - Liability and
Utilization Review Complaint and Appeal - Processes and Procedures - 143 MB -23 pp
SB118 Election Code - General Revision - 1,535 MB - 254 pp
SB401 Health Insurance - Complaint Process for Adverse Decisions and Grievances - 326 MB
- 48 pp
SB521 Health Care Regulatory Reform - 750 MB - 113 pp
SB544 Labor Relations Between Public Employers and Designated Employee Organizations -
186 MB - 29 pp
SB783 Public Utility Companies Article - Cross-References and Corrections - 111 MB -18 pp
HB2 Maryland Health Care Regulatory and Systems Reform Act - 700 MB - 108 pp
HB83/SB115 Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation - Denial, Suspension, or Revocation
of a License, Certificate, Permit, or Registration on Certain Crimes - 228 MB - 36 pp
HB139 Health Occupations - Unspent Special Funds - Waiting List Equity Fund - 159 MB -
25 pp
HB202 Consumer Credit - Mortgage Lending Business Reforms - 116 MB - 17 pp
HB167/SB143 Acquisition of Nonprofit Health Entities - 130 MB - 20 pp
HB318/SB230 The William H. Amoss Organ and Tissue Donation Act of 1998 - 188 MB - 29 pp
HB599 Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 (originally, Nutrient Management Practices
Improvement Act of 1998) - 375 MB - 53 pp
HB987 Employees' and Teachers' Pension Systems - Modification of Benefits and
Contributions - Optional Defined Contribution System - 157 MB - 24 pp
HB1035/SB686 Welfare Innovation Act of 1998 - 115 MB - 17 pp
HB1093/SB560 Family Law - Children in Out-of-Home Placements - 176 MB - 26 pp
Reinventing Budget Bills for the future: It is my suggestion that some thought should be given to "redesigning" the format, presentation and "friendliness" of future "budget bills" taking in account available technology, differing skill levels and ease of use in standard computer environments. At some point or other, it should be possible for a computer-oriented user to "copy to clipboard" or use some other technique to cut, copy or paste data (e.g., to spreadsheets) for the purpose of more detailed analysis and study. At the present time, I find myself laboriously leafing through locating what I need to know, and then I find myself having to rekey what has already been keyed (at some consternation and expense) in an attempt to make sense of data presented (percentages, proportions, growth/decline from previous years, etc.)
I would also suggest that the "reinvented" budget bill contain in some module summative and/or comparative charts or tables. The books of data issued by the Department of Budget and Management have come a long way over the past two or three years and could be instructive for Internet access or download.
Caveat: Users in the community and elsewhere in the State may not be able to upgrade software and/or hardware quite as rapidly as MLIS is developed. In my case, I did not want to and had no other need to upgrade to WP6 for DOS, WP for Windows, Corel WP 8 for Windows 95 and so forth and so on. Fortunately, using the DOS5 XCOPY command (and relevant switches) at a friend's network terminal C-drive, I managed to procure a conversion utility that has kept me in good stead for going on two consecutive sessions. I don't use KeyView -- my hard drive is large enough to handle any RTFs, HTMs or *.* from any session that comes along. Please do not entertain the notion of going over to Microsoft's products (i.e., Microsoft Word) unless and until you also make available a conversion utility to intercept and appropriately deal with *.DOCs as they are received.
Conclusion: The State of Maryland is a great state and has accomplished great strides in recent years in terms of Internet development and access for its citizens. I trust my comments here will be received in the same positive spirit that inspired me to write them.
cc: Governor Parris Glendenning
Delegate Howard P. Rawlings
Senator Barbara A. Hoffman