The Congressional Management Foundation will commence our seventh round of analyzing and grading more than 600 congressional personal, committee, and leadership office websites on June 1. The results will be released in October, with the Gold Mouse Awards Ceremony in November. We recognize that Members of Congress, by their nature, are competitive, which is why we established the Gold Mouse Awards system in 2001. One of the most common questions CMF gets is: 'What is the most important factor for winning a Gold Mouse Award?'
No single aspect wins an office a Gold Mouse - most winners have a combination of excellent qualities that convey transparency in government, assist constituents with services, and provide intelligent navigation (user interface, or UI). Yet, if CMF had to identify one key element of successful websites, it would be this: rich issue content.
Constituents who participated in focus groups and responded to our surveys indicated a significant reason they visited legislators' websites was to learn about their position on issues. In a 2007 survey of citizens CMF found that the first location on the Internet that a citizen would look for the position of a Member of Congress on an issue was the Member's website.
Yet, there are two obstacles to keeping issue information up-to-date - the first is easy to overcome, the second is harder. The first obstacle to updating issue information on a website is, regrettably, the Chief of Staff. CMF has heard some Chiefs of Staff say they would not post their legislator's position on, say, health care reform because, in their words, 'I don't want to do the other party's opposition research.' As a former Capitol Hill Press Secretary and Chief of Staff, I confess I once thought like this. For those still stuck in this 1990s mentality, here's a new flash: the RNC and DNC have computers and an Internet connection! Your position on health care is one click away and can be found by anyone.
Not publishing these positions results in two things happening. First, your constituents think you're hiding something, resulting in lower approval ratings for both your Member and Congress. In 2011 constituents expect a level of governmental transparency that did not exist in the 1990s. If you don't post positions on key issues the Member of Congress looks shifty, waffling, and like - and I mean this in the pejorative sense - 'a politician.' To overcome this obstacle, Chiefs of Staff must let go of this 1999 mentality.
Second, if constituents don't find it on your website they'll find it someplace else. According to the 2007 survey of Internet users referenced above, if citizens don't get the answer they want on an important issue from your Member's website, their second choice is a 'website they trust' (code word: special interest group). In trying to protect yourself and your boss' record from being distorted, you're actually hurting yourself. You have a chance to explain your positions directly to constituents, and instead you're sending them to third parties or even your opposition for information on your record/positions.
The second challenge to posting information on your Member's position is resources. But this is actually not as hard as it sounds. CMF research suggests that offices need only identify about 10 issues to satisfy constituents' interests, including local issues unique to the district or state. Offices usually have hundreds of constituent letters, approved by the Member, which could suffice as the basis of an 'issue position' on a website.
I'm not suggesting that you articulate a chapter and verse, section-by-section analysis of your Member's position on every issue. But a three-paragraph articulation on the key issues of the day will go a long way to build trust amongst constituents. Moreover - and here's the icing on the cake - it will reduce your constituent mail volume. Why? Because if a person gets an answer to a question on your website they won't seek the answer by sending an email to your office.
A few years ago I was explaining this concept to a Member of Congress. His issues section on his website read like it was set up by a typical politician-public relations expert. It had five issues with labels like, 'Protecting Families.' I asked, 'What is this section?' He said, “It’s our section on ‘Tax Policy’. I want people to understand that my position on taxes protects families.” My reply was, “Why not call that section ‘Tax Policy’?”
He got it. He said, “Ah…I need to think like a librarian, not a politician.” If you set up your website issues section like a politician, that’s exactly what your constituents will see — someone more interested in getting re-elected than meeting their needs. If you set it up like a librarian, you’ll satisfy your constituents’ needs, reduce your constituent mail load, and (in a small way) restore trust in Congress. Plus — and this is a minor reason for doing it — you’ll be one step closer to winning a CMF Gold Mouse Award!
Resource: Here are two excellent award-winning websites that apply these principles:
- Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
- Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
