Opening statement of Patrick E. Flahaven,
Secretary of the Senate, Minnesota State Senate (via videoconference)

Mr. Dreier. Let's beam out to Minnesota, to the Secretary of the Senate, Mr. Patrick Flahaven, who is the chief operating officer of the Senate under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration. His main functions are to act as parliamentarian and as administrator of the internal operations of the Senate. So, Mr. Secretary, I have been asked to urge you to speak very closely_and you, too, Scott when the time comes_to the microphone; and that will help us, I am told, hear better here in the hearing room.

So if I could now call on Mr. Flahaven.

STATEMENT OF PATRICK FLAHAVEN, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, MINNESOTA STATE SENATE (via videoconference)

Mr. Flahaven. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here to participate in this historic event this morning and to represent in some small way the State legislatures in the United States. We were watching you earlier on C-SPAN, which is carried in legislative offices here in the Capitol in the State office building, and enjoyed some of the discussion that took place earlier.

Your committee asked me to talk about some of the plans, trends, and innovations that are evolving here in the Senate and in the State legislature regarding legislative information technology, and I would like to say that high-speed data communication.

[Technical difficulties.]

Mr. Flahaven. We have a legislative Web site.

[Technical difficulties.]

Mr. Dreier. Is that our sensor that is doing that?

Mr. Flahaven. Committee meetings and agendas, and we also_in 1994, Minnesota, along with California, posted up-to-the-minute election returns on the Internet on election night and the next morning.

In the area of television, we have increased live coverage of floor sessions and committee meetings that are on a PBS broadcast channel, Channel 17, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, with uplinks to satellite broadcast to greater Minnesota and cable that reaches 81 percent of the households in the State. We also have increased coverage of conference committees. We use videoconferencing, interactive committee hearings and the use of in-house-produced videos for a variety of training purposes.

On the question of whether these plans, trends and innovations mirror those of other States, I guess I would say that here in Minnesota_excuse me_we lead in some areas and lag in others, but we are one of the States that is willing to experiment in new technology.

In television, we are early adopters. We began live coverage of floor sessions and committee meetings in 1988. Many of the States who have not used television are beginning to use it and many of the States that have used it in the past are actually expanding their hours of coverage.

I might suggest, for a complete picture of what is going on in the States, that you and other people who are interested get a copy of the Guide to Legislative Information Technology, which is published by the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. Bill Pound and his staff at NCSO will be glad to assist you. They have a staff there that works with all of the State legislatures on technology questions.

While one of the other things that we have discussed is how well the elected members of the Senate and House adjust to the utilization of new information technologies, the leadership here and the members have supported the utilization of emerging technologies and have been willing to budget for it, and that has brought us a long way. The support that we have enjoyed has really enabled us to break into new areas. In computers, some members have now been trained and are using PCs themselves in their offices, and others utilize it through their staffs; but all of the members here expect us to provide the best information at the fastest possible speed because we have time pressures, and legislatures can only meet for a set period of time during the year.

In television, virtually all members have adjusted to the fact that we cover so much by_

[Technical problem.]

Mr. Flahaven. Coverage, but we did have many who are skeptical about the need for coverage and the cost of it when we first initiated it. These changes have brought about behavioral and cultural changes in the institution.

I think that in the area of computers, more and more members are taking training on our software packages and many have become very proficient at it. I think that very often we say that whether or not members and staff adapt to this new technology depends on age and whether or not the person really is willing to try new technology, but we have found that age is not always the determining factor. We have many members who have been here a long time who are really getting into it and, of course, we have some of the new members who are coming in who are used to computer technology in their other lives that are adapting to it and using it all the time. But we get more requests for data and more requests for detailed data in making decisions.

One of the things that Congressman Ehlers referred to was paper, and I have to say that paper usage is reduced in some areas, but increases overall in spite of the wide variety of computer technology that we have.

By the way, I enjoyed Congressman Ehlers' comments and I agree with almost everything that he said in the area of computer usage. I think that maybe his background in the Michigan legislature has shaped some of his views, and I think that the things that he has talked about there show that you are on the right track.

In the area of television, as far as members adjusting, members pretty much forget the cameras are present most of the time. But we have found out that constituents are watching and they call in to express their feelings on the issues being considered on our television coverage, and so we know that people out there are watching.

I think, in general, the impact of television on this legislature has been that more citizens are aware of what is going on in the legislature and the issues before the legislature, and this has resulted in more citizen lobbying by phone and by fax and by e-mail.

And for members and the public, the more we do in technology, the more we raise expectations that we can do more and produce more; and consequently, there is an expectation that more and better information will always be made available, and that is something that we have to face. As you referred to, Mr. Chairman, I think the cost of some of this is always a question in an era of tight budgets, but there is a demand for it on the part of the public, and that is a cultural change.

Your staff also asked me to talk about the_what impact and public perception of the legislature has changed as a result of all of this, and I think what we have found is that the citizens who use the technology and see the results of that utilization have a clearer perception of what the legislature is doing and a generally positive reaction to it. I think that there will always be some who are skeptical, but I do think it has been a generally positive reaction. We get feedback from people all the time. Senators and representatives tell me that they get feedback from people who have seen the television coverage and who have used our material on the Internet.

Another question that comes up very often is, what has been the impact of information technology utilization on staff resources? I think the answer to that is that staff are more productive and better informed. It has not, however, reduced the number of staff. The extent to which staff and the members benefit and the institution benefits is directly correlated to the amount of training the staff and members receive on some of this new technology. We have found that training is the absolutely determinant here of how well this technology is used and what benefit from_that we get from it.

We also address the question of what are some of the practical lessons that the Congress might pick up from our experience in the legislatures, and I would say there are a few items that really are crucial. That is, to standardize software; conduct needs assessments; train users on every new piece of software that is made available; evaluate the results of the usage of the software; keep current on the emerging technologies and examine the effects of change on users in the public.

And the last thing would be to assure those who are concerned that technology is not a fearful monster. It is a valuable resource for the legislative process and does have a lot of benefits.

Thanks very much. I appreciate the opportunity for an opening statement, and I look forward to the discussion that we are going to have in the next hour or so.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flahaven follows:]

The Prepared Statement of Patrick E. Flahaven, Secretary of the Minnesota Senate

What plans, trends and innovations are evolving in the Minnesota State Senate with regard to legislative information technology?

* In computers: High speed data communication, Wide Area Network and Internet access including World Wide Web through Netscape Legislature Web site; public access to statutes, bills, journals and bill status; mobile computing (laptop); Senate and House Listsev gives notice to subscriber of committee meetings, agendas. In 1994 MN (and CA) posted up to the minute election returns on the Internet election night.

* In television: increased live coverage of floor sessions and committee meetings on PBS broadcast Ch. 17 in MSP area and uplink to satellite broadcast to greater Minnesota and cable that reaches 81% of the households in the State. Increased coverage of conference committees and video conferencing. In House production of videos for a variety of training.

Do these plans, trends and innovations mirror those of other state legislatures?

* In computers: We lead in some areas and lag in others; we are one of the states that is willing to experiment with new technology.

* In television: We are early adopters. We began live coverage of Floor sessions and committee meetings in 1988. Many states who have not done coverage are considering it and those who have been doing it are expanding the hours of coverage.

* For the complete picture of the states, I suggest getting Guide to Legislative Information Technology published by the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver, CO.

How well have elected Members of the Senate adjusted to the utilization of new information technologies?

* The leadership members have supported the utilization of emerging technologies and have been willing to budget for it.

* In Computers: Some Members have been trained and are using PCs themselves, others have utilized it through their staffs. All expect us to provide the best information at the fastest possible speed because of the time pressure of Session.

* In television: Virtually all Members have adjusted to and support the coverage, some were skeptical about the need for coverage and the cost.

What are some of the resulting behavioral and cultural changes?

* In computers: More and more Members are taking training on software packages; many are very proficient. Conventional wisdom says age is the determining factor_that is not always the case. Members ask for more data and more detailed data in making decisions.

* In television: Members forget the cameras are present most of the time. Constituents are watching and call in to express their feelings on the issues being considered.

* In general: The impact has been more citizen awareness of the issues before the Legislature. This has resulted in more citizen lobbying by phone, FAX and E Mail. For Members and the public; the more we do with technology, the more we raise expectations that we can do more and produce more.

How have public perceptions of the Minnesota State Senate changed as a result of increased public access to legislative information?

* The citizens who use and see the results of technology utilization have a clearer perception of what the Legislature does and a generally positive reaction.

What has been the impact of information technology utilization on staff resources?

Staff is more productive and better informed. It has not however reduced the number of staff. The extent to which staff and the legislators benefit is directly correlated to the amount of training the staff receives.

What are some of the practical lessons that Congress can learn as we increase our investments in information technologies?

* Conduct needs assessments
* Standardize software
* Train users on every new piece of software
* Evaluate results
* Keep current on emerging technology
* Examine effects of change on users and the public
* Realize that new technology is not a fearsome monster_it is a valuable and productive resource for the benefit of the legislative process.

Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your being here and that came through very clearly here in the hearing room.