The Congress Online Project is a two-year effort run by the Congressional Management Foundation to help address issues regarding the information and communications flow among Congress, citizens, public interest groups, and lobbyists. On March 19th, COP released "E-Mail Overload in Congress: Managing a Communications Crisis," a report based on work done in conjunction with George Washington University. The report indicates that as many as 55,000 and 8,000 e-mail messages are directed to members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives respectively each month-- roughly 80 million messages a year for the Congress as a whole. The study figures that the number of messages is increasing by one million each month, unwieldy enough for the limited number of staff in each office assigned to respond to that volume. OMB Watch reported on a number of issues raised by the study in a 1998 report. The striking thing is how consistent, after three years, the prevailing attitudes on the Hill remain towards e-mail, and the reasons cited for the blockages in communication linkages between citizens and public interest groups, and government. One figure from the CMF/GWU study is telling: some 90% of offices are still more likely to reply by e-mail with a regular postal mail message. The implication is that by not taking advantage of technologies that help filter or route mail more efficiently, office staffers are not as likely to take advantage of the means to effectively and efficiently respond to that mail. It's an important item to consider, especially given that each congressional office functions as an independent unit. There is another troubling implication, however: that mail can and should not only be categorized or filtered according to the identity of the sender (organization or individual)-- but that technology which can also block incoming communications should be implemented as well. To its credit, the study does encourage member offices to experiment with proactive online approaches that anticipate citizen information needs, including:

1. regular constituent e-mail updates
2. maintaining separate e-mail lists for issue areas
3. adding web links from member home pages to online background information and news on high-visibility issues
4. online content outlining member positions on a range of issues
5. an online frequently asked questions page that outlines basic office functions and operations, that is optionally accessible only to constituents or visitors who are willing to register a legitimate e-mail address
6. tips on communicating with members
7. online polls and surveys to gauge citizen interest
8. online guest books or comment forms

Though not suggested in the report itself, options (4), (5), and (6) in particular could be developed into an autoresponder e-mail document, such that when interested parties send a blank e-mail message to a predetermined e-mail address, the content is automatically returned to the sender. All of the options, however, entail a number of privacy and security issues that would need to be addressed by each office. One that will not sit well with a number of groups is the suggestion that grassroots lobbyists adopt a "code of conduct" under which they would adhere to rules to not flood offices with e-mail mail as part of an online campaign. The study indeed suggests that the bulk of the blame for the flood of e-mail rests with grassroots lobbying organizations (and the companies that work with and through them) who choose to use e-mail as an advocacy tool. While the study makes a credible case for suggesting that citizen interest in making concerns heard on the Hill has outpaced citizen awareness of how Congress operates, it seems to overlook (in either a somewhat dismissive or condescending tone) one basic fact. Congress represents not only the population of a particular geographic area-- the members also represent issues of national concern. Members in leadership roles, committee positions, and voting members of a representative body, serve as finders of fact and the voice of the collective society. As such, they are tasked not only with responding to the concerns of their constituents, but also those of people affected by the issues they consider. A smaller level of blame is afforded to congressional offices that do not elect to utilize or implement existing e-mail tracking and filtering tools, an expenditure (or investment?) that could cost up to US$50,000 per office. These tools include technologies-- in many cases already owned, but not installed, by individual offices-- that could help categorize messages by subject-- or limit incoming mail to those generated by actual constituents and individuals, versus messages from outside of a given district or state and from organizations. The report calls for more resources to be allocated to help member offices acquire the people, tools, and training to implement these solutions. The effectiveness and efficiency in processing incoming mail and the responses to it, however, still do not address the quality of the response and the willingness of members to hear citizen concerns through electronic means. Until there are better gauges of Congress' receptiveness to e-mail in general; its actual use by individual members and their staffs; and those factors which ensure that e-mail messages are actually read and responded to, technology will always be viewed as a distraction at best, and a bane at worst. The CMF/GWU study is informative as to the internal congressional perceptions with responding to e-mail through electronic means. There is the already noted worry about limited resources, definitely, but there also appears to be concerns that congressional responses might be altered, tampered, or even intercepted. There is a fear that as efficiency increases, individual staff workload will increase as well. Moreover, offices still don't seem to treat their information technology systems administrators as more than a position for short-term entry-level employees, rather than a key integrated member of the staff. In addition, offices have difficulty in implementing clear e-mail policies informed by the input of administrative, technical, policy, and leadership positions in the office. The report also lists some of the packages available for use by congressional staff, which might be useful for citizens and public interest organizations to review as well. This may help raise the awareness of the interfaces and mechanisms involved in automating and speeding up the retrieval, processing, archiving, and responding functions attached to electronic mail, and may help to inform decisions to better connect constituents and offices. The tacit assumption is that while individual offices do need to plan and implement tools to help effectively support a growing set of electronic communications channels to and from the public, the public needs to also consider its expectations and needs from Congress as well. There are some options that may work for particular offices that might not satisfy the demands of the public served. As such, it is important for members and citizens to evaluate not only their technology options, but their (ostensibly) mutual goals as well. Resources Congressional Management Foundation "E-Mail Overload in Congress: Managing a Communications Crisis" Congress Online Project (2001) "Speaking Up in the Internet Age" OMB Watch (1998)