• Interview with me on the Creative Commons blog, about my work in open education
• Center for Open Learning and Teaching, a research consortium about open education based at the University of Mississippi
• Wiki Strategies, a consulting business specializing in Wikipedia and other collaborative communities

Last week, a bill I’d been working on (unpaid) was before a legislative committee in Salem. I had expected it to be heard on Tuesday, but at about noon on the previous Friday, I learned that it was going to be up at about 3pm that day.

So I canceled appointments with clients, and arranged to get from Portland to Salem. I then delivered my testimony, reflecting about 6 months of volunteer work facilitating a discussion among a broad group of business, policy, and government experts.

The committee chair did not listen to a word of my testimony (maybe 45 seconds); he was talking with the committee secretary about something more important.

On the whole, a massively inefficient, and somewhat humiliating, interaction. It’s fun to learn the steps to an odd 19th century ritual, but pretty frustrating to be required to do it just in order to sum up my work to a decision-maker.

I didn’t let it stop me, but many people with something to offer do. They don’t even consider the possibility of meaningful communication with their government institutions.

I, for one, applaud Ted Wheeler for daring to ask how government can become better at leveraging modern technology to better communicate with the public.

Am I suggesting that I should have been able to “tweet” my testimony? Of course not.

But here are just a few groups that have recognized that Twitter is an important dish on the modern communications menu, and have invested substantial capital or sweat into getting it right:

• The Obama campaign
• Innumerable news outlets
• Innumerable retail businesses
• Many elements of the Portland small business community
• Any modern communications consulting business
• etc., etc., etc.

To those of you who claim you’re “too old” or “too unhip” to get it, you’re wrong. If you think Twitter is a trend, or diminishes personal interaction (rather than enriching it), you’re wrong. In case you hadn’t noticed, we’re in the midst of a communications revolution — and many of the tools that emerge represent significant progress. 20 years ago, you were telling me that email was a toy for academics and computer geeks, and would never catch on. 5 years ago, you were saying something similar about blogs. Pardon my lack of interest, but admit it — your track record isn’t that good.

If you genuinely want to understand how Twitter or related tools can fit into an effective communication strategy for the County or any other institution, I’d be happy to sit down and have a discussion.

But, fair warning: I’ll charge you a lot of money for that discussion. That kind of consulting is in pretty high demand these days.

You’re probably familiar with the concept of biased edits on the “encyclopedia anyone can edit.” The mainstream media loves to express outrage when campaign staffers, PR agencies, or enamored spouses try to “doctor” Wikipedia articles, often leading to awkward hyperbole; last year, the Oregonian’s Jeff Mapes was happy to lend his name to this sort of sloppy thinking, accusing a staffer on Steve Novick’s campaign of inappropriately editing the biography of Novick’s opponent, Jeff Merkley. (In reality, the edit in question was mostly an improvement to the article, and was reviewed by an experienced and uninvolved Wikipedia editor within about 23 minutes. So the harm alleged by the Merkley campaign was pretty much nonexistent.)

Such stories miss the point in too many ways to mention. But self-interested Wikipedia editing is, of course, a reality. And for the regular Wikipedia editor, it can provide a fascinating insight into how the campaign staffers, PR agencies, and enamored spouses of the world are thinking.

This Wikipedia edit, which wandered across my computer screen earlier today, told me something interesting about Portland media — something that has gone unreported in other media outlets. But before I can properly explain it, here’s just a little more background.

Last May, the Portland Tribune (a former employer of mine) dropped from two weekly editions to one, and laid off a bunch of employees. A sensible response to tough times in the industry. But they were roundly criticized by other Portland publications for the spin they put on it: rather than characterizing it as the downsizing it was, the Tribune was quick to pat itself on the back for their new plan to update daily on their web site, a product they called a “daily online newspaper.”

But the punchline on the joke was that they called it “LocalNewsDaily.com” — rebranding their web site to combine the Trib and their numerous other community papers into a single web site, clearly advertising that they were producing some kind of innovative “online daily newspaper.” The name was a clear indication that they thought they had a truly innovative product — that they were somehow reinventing local news delivery by updating frequently on the web. (Apparently, they were using the domain as early as 2006, though they did not advertise the name that early.)

So, what’s the scoop today? Well, in contrast to the launch of LocalNewsDaily.com, which created quite a buzz on the local scene, the disappearance of the LocalNewsDaily.com brand name apparently escaped the notice of the local press.

The site as of January 2009

But I spotted it, because of a tiny Wikipedia edit that caught my eye. Someone anonymous — and it’s hard to imagine it was anyone but a Trib employee — took the trouble to remove the references to LocalNewsDaily.com from the article on the Pamplin Media Group (the Trib’s parent company). And sure enough, when I punched LocalNewsDaily.com into my web browser, it redirected to a web site that’s now known as PortlandTribune.com.

Just like it used to, back in the day.

(Click below to view the whole comic)

This event, similar to the Iron Chef TV show, will benefit The Giving Tree, one of my favorite Portland non-profits. Founder Wendi Anderson and a cadre of dedicated volunteers bring art and recreational services to people in transitional housing, who are often at a loss as to how to reintegrate with society after prolonged homelessness. It’s an important niche that doesn’t get met by other non-profits, and is one of those things that makes Portland special.

Anyway, back to the event — a panel of celebrity judges, including Mayor-elect Sam Adams, Mixologist Lucy Brennan, and Bike Geek Around Town Reverend Phil, will evaluate the mixings of three Portland bartenders.

Just $10 gets you in the door, and there will be all kinds of chances to get more goodies if you have more cash to give. The competition is 9:00 to 9:30, followed by some fine DJs and dancing.

So come on down! 205 NW 4th Ave. Doors at 7pm.

Iron Bartender handbill

In recent years, I’ve been amazed by all the exciting new ways of developing idea that are emerging new technology. I spend way too much of my time writing and editing articles on Wikipedia; I read blogs, and ask questions in the comments; and obviously, I’ve taken a crack at keeping my own blog. I check in on what my friends are saying on Twitter.com a couple times a day; I listen to talk radio shows, and call in or email when it seems like they’re missing something. And pretty often, I meet and get to physically shake hands with someone that I’ve known for months or years, and worked with extensively.

But at the same time, I’ve been pretty disappointed by how little government seems to take advantage of these kinds of tools for innovation, policy development, disseminating information, and generally keeping people up to date with what’s going on in their world and how they can change it. There are some rays of hope, but by and large, government approach to the Internet is still struggling to catch up to 1995.

This January, with a fresh crop of legislators heading to Salem, we have a chance to work for a kind of change that will help us all stay better-informed about what our government is doing, and about how to influence it in our areas of passion and expertise. The Obama supporters among us may be shouting “Yes We Did,” but I believe that “Yes We Can” remains the better phrase. We may have succeeded in electing a president who will be more open to innovative ideas, but our job of supplying those ideas — and developing the same kinds of conditions on a local level — is just beginning.

The bill I’m working on — and hope you will help us work on — will address at least four areas:

Public domain

The law should assert unequivocally that works of state government are in the public domain, and are not subject to copyright protection by the agencies that produce them. Readers of this blog may recognize this concept, as it ties in with what we accomplished with the Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee last spring.

Spending

The public has a right to know how government money is being spent. This bill should establish a web site that discloses contracts entered into by state agencies (like the federal USAspending.gov).

There is precedent for this on a federal level (Obama/Coburn act, 2006), and in several states.

Economic development

Many policies and programs are adopted in the interest of economic development. However, there is rarely public evaluation of these programs and their efficacy. This bill should establish guidelines and procedures for evaluating economic development spending, and how effectively they achieve their desired results.

See Senate Bill 518 of 2007, introduced by Senator Vicki Walker, but not passed.

An envorinment for innovation

There are many public- and private-sector organizations (nonprofits, universities, Internet-based communities, neighborhood associations) that aim to work in the public interest. To the degree that government initiatives are available for scrutiny, these organizations may lend their own innovative approaches to the process. But when it’s difficult to discern what government is doing, this sort of innovation is stifled.

This bill should aim to establish an environment conducive to innovation.

In drafting this bill, we hope to model the sort of collaborative, open process that it seeks to enable. We have lots of smart and dedicated people committed to getting this done; but there are a lot of details to sort out, and strategic decisions to be made.

Where do you fit in? Come add your name to the page, and if you like, leave a note about what aspect you want to work on!

YES on 65

NO on 64
NO on 63
NO on 62
NO on 61

??? on 60
NO on 59
NO on 58

YES on 57
YES on 56
YES on 55
YES on 54

As you may know, I’ve devoted a lot of attention to the history of ballot measures in Oregon. In this election cycle, ballot measures aren’t getting nearly the attention of the presidential and senate races; but there are some very important measures before us, from an excellent opportunity to reshape the way we handle elections in a more inclusive way (Measure 65) to dangerous-but-popular measures that must be stopped if we hope to build a better Oregon (like Measure 61).

Many of you ask for my thoughts on these, so I thought I’d put together my positions for all to see, and open it up for discussion. I should disclose, I’ve taken a paid gig in favor of Measure 65, but only because I truly think it’s one of the greatest opportunities for positive change in this election cycle. For that reason, and also because Measure 57 only makes sense in the context of Measure 61, I’ve listed the measures in reverse order.

Please feel free to copy this and send it to your friends and family. Modify, of course, as you see fit. I sure did — this draws heavily on the positions advanced by Defend Oregon and Onward Oregon. For a general overview, be sure to check the Wikipedia article on the current election.

So, on to the measures:

YES on Measure 65

The current system in Oregon excludes one in four registered voters from participating in any partisan primary election. Only voters who have registered with a major party (Democratic or Republican) may participate in partisan elections. Everyone else is excluded from voting in important races like those for state and national legislators; statewide offices like Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Treasurer; and some local positions.

In practice, independent and minor party voters almost never have an influence on who serves in the legislature. Same for Democrats in eastern Oregon, where Republicans win consistently, and for Republicans in urban centers. These are all voices we need at the table to move our state forward.

Measure 65 would change the primary system, and give all those people a role equal to other voters. All voters would choose from a list of all candidates in the primary election; the top two finishers would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Each voter would get to choose the best candidate regardless of party.

In addition, voters would be provided more factual information on the ballot: any party could endorse any candidate. If a candidate chooses to accept the nominations, he or she might have several party endorsements (e.g., Democratic and Pacific Green, or Republican and Libertarian) listed on the ballot. So minor parties, which have been relegated to running “spoiler” candidates in the past, would have a much more meaningful role; smaller parties could negotiate with major party candidates to earn their endorsement.

More info:

• Ballot Freedom Project web site in favor
• VoteYes65.com official YES campaign

NO on Measure 64

Prevents public employees from using voluntary payroll deductions to donate to non-profits, charities, unions, and organizations of their choice. Reduces public employees’ opportunities for free speech. This is a dangerous measure could lead to a loss of funding for Oregon charities and unions. It’s a matter of principle (free speech), and will also have enormous negative effects in practice.

NO on Measure 63

Allows property owners to construct certain structures, costing less than $35,000, without a permit. Could allow unsafe construction projects; for example, poor electrical wiring could cause problems that extend beyond a single home and endanger firemen. The measure would also result in a loss of tax revenue to cities and counties that are already experiencing large deficits.

NO on Measure 62

Allocates 15% of lottery proceeds to a public safety fund for crime prevention, investigation, prosecution; takes the funds from education and economic development. Measure 62 takes over $100 million from our education and economic development projects and limits the state’s flexibility to use lottery funds as needed. It defines “public safety” irresponsibly, leaving out major elements like 911 dispatch and prisons. Public safety is a critical concern, but this is the wrong way to fund it.

NO on Measure 61

Proposed by Kevin Mannix, Measure 61 imposes mandatory minimum sentences (like Measure 11 from 1994) for non-violent property crimes, drug-related offenses, and identity theft. It fails to include drug or alcohol treatment programs to prevent repeat offenses, and it prevents our judges from exercising discretion and judgment based on the specifics of a case. Most significantly, it would cost Oregon up to $274 million per year once fully implemented, plus an estimated $1.1 to1.3 billion to build new prisons. Mannix has proposed no funding plan, so this measure would drastically cut funding for education and other public services.

UNDECIDED on Measure 60

Mandates that teacher pay raises depend exclusively on undefined “classroom performance” as opposed to “seniority.” This is a very short and simple ballot measure; please read the measure text and think this one over carefully. The “opposition” arguments I’ve seen are full of claims that seem highly dubious. However, people I trust have explained to me that existing Oregon laws mean that an expensive statewide system would need to be implemented; so it’s not as simple or benign as it appears. Plus, in my experience there’s always room for a bit of skepticism where chief petitioner Bill Sizemore is concerned.

Changing to a “yes” vote here, following a discussion with Amy Ruiz (who’s part of the editorial board for the Mercury — see all their endorsements). This is an important first step; it doesn’t guarantee good results, but rather creates a framework for evaluating teachers. Evaluation is important; there are lots of ways to do it wrong, but we shouldn’t be afraid to do it, and do it right. There will be more reform required, but it’s about time we started the process. If we’re not equipped to evaluate teacher performance, it’s high time we remedied that — and considering that school funding is over half the state budget, and the schools serve nearly all Oregonians, this is a pretty big ticket item.

I’m still not fully decided on this one; watch for a future blog post. I’m leaning toward “Yes.”

NO on Measure 59

Creates an unlimited deduction for federal income taxes on individual taxpayers’ Oregon income-tax returns and reduces revenue available for state expenditures by $2.4 billion. The reduction will affect funding of education, health care, and public safety. Richest 1% of Oregonians will save $15,000 while 75% of Oregonians will save less than $1.

NO on Measure 58: Imposes an arbitrary limit on bilingual programs in public schools so that students must enter mainstream classes, regardless of progress, after only two years of English learning classes. Measure 58 is a one-size-fits-all mandate that undermines local school control and will cost over $200 million to implement.

YES on Measure 57

This measure is an alternative to Measure 61, referred to the ballot by the Oregon legislature. It shares some of Measure 61′s problems, but vote “yes” anyway.

Like 61, Measure 57 creates longer sentences for certain property crimes and drug-related offenses. But it doesn’t rely as heavily on mandatory minimum sentences, which undermine judges’ ability to do what’s best in a given situation. Unlike Measure 61, Measure 57 includes mandatory drug treatment program for certain offenders.

If both 57 and 61 receive a majority of “yes” votes, only the one receiving more votes will become law. Polling indicates Measure 61 is certain to pass. Even if you think Measure 57 is bad policy, hold your nose and vote for it — Measure 61 is much, much worse.

Special thanks to my friend Jen Yocom for helping me get my thinking straight on this one.

• Oregonian story for more background
• betterwaytofightcrime.com — official “YES” web site

YES on Measure 56

Allows May and November bond measures to be determined by the majority of voters who vote. Under the “double majority” rule established by Measure 47 in 1996, more than half of registered voters must vote, in order for local funding measures to pass. Measure 56 restores the ability of local communities to determine their funding priorities. This is one of the most important opportunities on the ballot, to undo a bit of the damage wrought by the over-the-top anti-tax movement of the 1990s. There are times when local communities need to raise money, and the double-majority rule is overly burdensome.

YES on Measure 55

Allows legislators to complete their terms in the districts in which they were elected. When districts are redrawn every ten years, this will prevent legislators from being reassigned to new districts that did not elect them. Seems like a good housekeeping measure, and in line with the views that lead me to support Measure 65.

YES on Measure 54

Makes 18-year-olds eligible to vote in school board elections, consistent with state and federal elections. Repeals six-month residency requirement, twenty-one minimum age, and English literacy tests to remove outdated and unenforceable language from the Oregon Constitution.

Other guides and endorsements:

• Official Voters’ Pamphlet from Secretary of State (tough to navigate; check links in lower left)
• Working Families Party
• League of Women Voters
• Defend Oregon (PDF file)
• Rural Organizing Project (PDF file)

Please pass this message along to friends and families — feel free to modify as you see fit!