In a recent Hart-Teeter poll, respondents said greater "government accountability" was the most significant benefit that e-government could confer. This was chosen by a considerable margin, almost three times as often as was "convenient services." The second top priority according to the poll is "greater public access to information" (which is, of course, essential for greater government accountability). Majorities of adults expressed a favorable view of every e-government function tested. Government officials were also surveyed. The survey report notes that government officials regard public access to information as the greatest benefit (34%) but rank accountability much lower (19%). As the pollsters comment, the government and the public apparently are in synch in valuing e-government's ability to produce a more informed citizenry, but the public is much more focused on its empowering potential. Managing Government Information Providing real, meaningful, useful, ongoing access to the vast array of information created or collected or maintained by or for the federal government is complex, and it is hard work. The E-Government Act of 2001 is a key step in acknowledging and addressing the need and the difficulties. The bill does not, however, rise out of a vacuum. A number of nonprofit public interest organizations, including OMB Watch and the library community, have been raising these issues for many years. And, both historically and more recently, voices inside the government have focused on these concerns. One significant recent report from the government on these issues is "Transforming Access to Government through Information Technology" from the Panel on Transforming Government of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC). One of the findings in the Panel's report is of particular interest: "Major technological barriers prevent citizens from easily accessing government information resources that are vital to their well being. Today government information is often unavailable, inadequate, out of date, and needlessly complicated." The Panel recalls the PITAC's charge about convenient, easy-to-use access to well-managed information and notes that finding the important information stored in the government's many databases is—in and of itself—difficult. The Panel recognized that FirstGov is not the solution to this problem, but is a "near-term effort built with currently available technologies." They urged effort focused on "government-specific capabilities" such as "metadata creation, and comprehensive searchable catalogs of information and services." This is precisely the effort for which the E-Government Act of 2001 lays the framework. Both the section on "common protocols for geospatial information systems" and the section on "accessibility, usability, and preservation of government information" create a process for moving the federal to common and open protocols and standards. The latter section also moves the government to establish basic knowledge and management of its own information—for both its own uses and for the public. This management is critical for access—the public cannot ask for and the government cannot disseminate what neither knows exists, or cannot find. The process established in this bill is as fundamental as the end result. At every stage in the process of identifying standards, identifying information to be inventoried (listed), to be cataloged, and to be disseminated, public participation is required and the results of the decisions are to be posted online. This process is key because moving from the "silos of rotting information" that exist now (with some notable exceptions) to real management of government information across its life-cycle (from creation/collection through its retirement from current agency use to archiving/disposition or permanent public accessibility through a repository) is not going to happen in a year or even two. So, an open process and public accountability are essential. Bringing Information and Coordination to the Fore The E-Government Act of 2001 also lays important groundwork in the area of coordination of activities and of funding for interagency/cross-agency initiatives. Currently, there is no coherent coordination of funding for governmental information management initiatives, which must be both government-wide and agency-by-agency. And currently, the coordination and oversight responsibilities for the management of government information fall within the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at OMB. For all of OIRA's existence, the "I" has generally been subsumed and overwhelmed by the "R." This is a situation that is likely to continue, if not worsen. The (currently-structured) federal CIO Council is no answer to this problem because, as the Panel on Transforming Government notes, the Council's "mandates require them to focus primarily on near-term operational issues and acquisitions. Budget planning processes make it difficult to carry out effective cross-agency coordination and execution and the long-term research efforts that many of the goals require." They also note that, while "the CIO Council has established mechanisms for sharing results and lessons, the process of creating standardized processes and information representations, eventually leading to cross-agency transactions and information federation and integration, is much harder and requires cross-agency budget planning and execution." As they note, though, creating cross-agency budgets requires substantial work and, "therefore, is used only for large initiatives." Moreover, depending on cross-agency plans is very risky because of the uncertainty that all participants will receive adequate funding. ..." In addition, the Panel notes that the "stovepiping of both congressional and executive review processes causes stovepiping of plans and programs." While the E-Government Act does not solve all these problems, it takes some key steps. The primary of these are to raise the importance and visibility of information policy and information management within the executive branch. When these have not been subsumed to regulatory concerns, as in OIRA, they have been inundated by concerns with procurement and security. But information is central to government in all of its interactions with contemporary society, and the government needs to provide a central focus on it. The bill would establish a Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO), who would be charged with providing the "leadership, vision, communication, coordination, and innovation necessary to maximize government effectiveness in using information technology." The Federal CIO would be located in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and would report to the Director. S/he would run a newly created Office of Information Policy. Her/his duties would include: Information Policy—implementing existing information provisions found in various statutes, and leading the efforts to address issues of concern such as online privacy; Inter-Organizational Dialogue; Standards and Protocols—directing the implementation of (1) IT interoperability standards and (2) standards for categorizing and electronically labeling information, to enhance search capabilities; Computer Security; Procurement— help to ensure effective implementation of electronic procurement initiatives; and Funding—reviewing the agencies' information technology budget requests; and administering a central Interagency Information Technology Fund (IITF) for interagency projects and innovative IT initiatives laws. The bill would also statutorily establish the CIO Council. Its duties would include providing recommendations to the Federal CIO on the distribution of funds from the IITF and working on standards and guidelines. More to Be Done This piece of legislation is certainly not the final word on e-government. It is not even a final word on the role of government information toward that end. There are many aspects that is does not address—a key one being the failure of the government to get control of and manage its electronic records, including its e-mail. It does not include legislative branch information at all, which seems a triumph of the political reality of congressional intransigence and protection of tradition and privilege. It is somewhat timid in its approach to the courts—a similar triumph. Some will fault the bill for not provide a comprehensive vision of the role of government information, and access to it. A need certainly exists for such a vision, but this bill does not intend or pretend to provide it. A significant gap in the bill, and one that is fixable (at least on paper) is the lack of funding (or mechanisms for identification and budgeting of funding needs) for much of the information management work that will have to be undertaken by the agencies. We have argued that this is work that the agencies need to be doing anyway—and a good percentage is work they are supposed to be doing already. This remains true. But work that the Congress and the public consider essential to good government should have funds allocated to it.