Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Topics

E-Government In NYC


You may not know it, but you are living in the capital of electronic government, or one of them anyway. But, how many of us have actually looked up a restaurant?s health inspection or paid a parking ticket online? What does being the hub of e-gov really mean for New Yorkers? Can it help us solve the budget crisis?

New York City ranks second in the first annual Digital Cities Survey by the Center for Digital Government and Government Technology magazine. The survey compared New York with other cities of more than 250,000 people and ranked them as follows: Honolulu took first place; Chicago, New York and Seattle were second; Colorado Springs and Houston were fifth; Charlotte, Indianapolis and Tucson were seventh and Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego and Tampa ranked tenth.

In addition, New York City won first place in the Center for Digital Government's national 2001 Best of the Web competition has won over 25 other awards for their use of telecommunications and technology in local government.

So, New York City is good at e-gov, but what exactly is it? Most simply, e-government is the adoption of communications technology by the public sector to deliver information and services. Just as technology has allowed the private sector to increase efficiency, when applied in government, technology has the potential to greatly streamline bureaucracy. The stages of building an e-gov from a bricks and mortar government are relatively simple. First, the focus is on online access to content and forms, next on the ability to conduct transactions, and, finally, on creating comprehensive portals or one-stop government sites.

NYC.gov is the city's main e-government portal. The site has more than 30,000 pages of content and 100 online transactional services. Online transactions include paying parking tickets, viewing property statements, obtaining birth and death certificates, or finding out your recycling and garbage collection schedule. The ability to access information and conduct transactions online was extremely important after September 11 when many New Yorkers found e-mail and Internet access to be their only reliable form of communication. The city's well-developed e-government portal allowed emergency information to be posted and updated regularly during the crisis.

According to Cathilea Robinett, executive director of the Center for Digital Government, "New York City has an extremely robust site. It is one of the few local government sites with a citizen customization component. It is easy to navigate and the section titled, 'I want to' is perfect for intuitive citizen use."

The current success of NYC.gov is partly a result of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's strong support of e-government initiatives. According to Stephen Ronaghan, project manager for the United Nations Global Survey on E-government, "New York City's e-government program is one of the most complete that I've seen from any level of government. The websites are user-friendly, content is well organized and they offer online capacity for nearly every city-service that can be offered over the Web."

Clearly, New York has made it to the most advanced stage in the development of e-government. Now the challenge is making sure that people are using it. According to U.S. News and World Report, less than one percent of all citizen-to-government transactions are handled online. In order to justify the investment in e-government, this figure needs to increase dramatically.

However, currently, awareness of the ability to conduct government services online is low and access to computers among some segments of the population is lacking. In recent years, we have seen a number of e-government companies emerge and sometimes disappear, such as GovWorks, which was profiled in the movie Startup.com. Their demise points partly to this lack of awareness among citizens. This has prevented NYC.gov from being used extensively by citizens to conduct transactions rather than to obtain information only.

We all know that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is tech-savvy. His success as the leader of a financial information company with cutting edge technology and his transformation of City Hall into an open office equipped with 35 high-tech terminals donated by his company proves it. However, the mayor's official e-government policy has not yet been announced and it remains to be seen whether e-government will suffer a 20 percent cut along with the rest of city government.

The city is facing a potential $4 billion deficit and enhanced e-government services offer the possibility to help shrink this number in the long run. As we have seen in the private sector, online transactions are fast and efficient. While initial investment in technology is necessary, typically, e-government programs are run with a relatively small number of employees. This is true both for NYC.gov and FirstGov, the United States' e-government portal.

The challenge for Mayor Bloomberg is to make sure that New Yorkers know about NYC.gov's extensive offerings so that the maximum number of transactions are conducted online. In addition, greater coordination is needed between NYC.gov and the web sites of city agencies. While it is fine for agencies to maintain their own autonomy online, there should be consistency between the web sites of different agencies. Some agencies have yet to update their sites to reflect their relationship with NYC.gov.

So, stop by NYC.gov and take the tour. You too can help decrease the city's deficit.

Laura Forlano is a doctoral student studying communication technology policy at Columbia University.

 

Is Time Warner Cable A Villain?


At a time when Time Warner Cable has announced that it is raising its rates once again, at more than triple the rate of inflation, it has lowered its standards of service to its customers.

That at least is the experience of one customer who called me irate and frustrated -- and since he had a good tale to tell (and also because he is my editor), I listened. He had telephoned Time Warner to send somebody to repair his cable, because the reception was full of snow. It took an astonishing nine appointments over a period of six weeks, about 60 hours of waiting -- four days home from the office -- conversations with about 30 representatives from Time Warner AND they accidentally cut his telephone lines while attempting to fix his cable service. Oops.

He wrote a letter to Time Warner Cable's director of customer service. The company claims that all complaints are answered within two business days of receipt and that matters are resolved within 10 days. But he did not receive any letter in response after more than a month of waiting, and matters were certainly not resolved. So he sent a second letter to the director - only this time, he sent a copy to three agencies: the New York Better Business Bureau, the New York State Public Service Commission, the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT)

The response was swift and excessive. Not only has his cable been fixed, but representatives from two different departments of Time Warner Cable, customer service and public affairs, have been calling HIM on the telephone (rather than the other way around). Each time they make reference to "the letter you wrote to the city." It is the New York Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, then, that is the hero of this tale. And there is some evidence that they will continue to be the heroes, with Michael Bloomberg's appointment on December 19 of Vincent La Padula, formerly the chief of staff of DoITT, as the Senior Advisor to the Mayor. His job will be in part to oversee DoITT.

Time Warner Cable, on the other hand, is clearly this tale's villain. As of this writing two months after his cable first broke down, he still has not received any written correspondence from Time Warner Cable in response to his letters, and this is not the only explicit company policy the company has broken in this case. It claims on its web site, for example, that it respects the schedules of its busy customers and aims to limit waiting around for appointment (In all but one of the appointments, they repair technicians showed up later than the latest time they said they would). The representatives also have told him that in their computers they only have a record of two appointments made with him, not the nine that the repair technicians actually made with him, which is contrary to Time Warner Cable's policy of recording all appointments in its customer database.

Was all this just a fluke, or is this the norm in cable customer service?

In fact, the number of complaints against cable companies in New York City went up 50 percent from August to September, and surged once more in the month of October, according to the New York State Public Service Commission. Time Warner Cable's complaints in Brooklyn alone more than quadrupled from September to October. In fairness, these Brooklyn October complaints numbered only 21 (up from four in September). In the whole state, in the month of October, the cable company Cablevision received 84 complaints and Time Warner Cable received 135, 39 of them in Manhattan. And the New York Better Business Bureau, based on the small number of complaints it receives, lists Time Warner Cable as having a satisfactory record, meaning in part that it is free of an unusual volume of complaints.

Anecdotal evidence suggests many customers do not go to the trouble of making official complaints to the relevant regulatory agencies, so these numbers may not reflect the true level of dissatisfaction . But they are all we have to go on. Still, even accepting the official complaints as an accurate gauge, it is clear that the numbers have gone up dramatically in the last few months. The level of dissatisfaction is on the rise.

Is this a reflection of anti-consumer policies, or is there another explanation?

The cable company offers another explanation. Harriet Novet, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable, explained the surge in complaints in Brooklyn, for example, to the fact that many technicians were borrowed from that borough to aid in the round-the-clock efforts at the Mayor's Command Center in Manhattan. And, in general, the events of September 11th resulted in significant increased requests for cable, and that is what caused busy phone lines and extended waits for appointments. According to Time Warner Cable's web site, they are in need of more technicians, and they are hiring them.

This is of course a compelling response. Cable is widely regarded as the savior of news and information following September 11 as a result of interrupted broadcast and radio transmissions. (Many broadcast stations used the antenna on top of the Twin Towers.)

But this does not explain how, despite reduced customer service (for whatever reason), the cable companies can justify their decision to raise their rates by up to seven percent on February 1. This means that Time Warner Cable customers will pay about $2.70 more for standard cable service. According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), last year, cable rates were increased by as much as 5.8 percent. So, why is the government backing Yet another rate increase now during a period of recession and low inflation (and poor service)?

Time Warner Cable attributes the increase to increased programming costs. Last year, the FCC reported that programming costs accounted for 41.4 to 44.1 percent of increases. But a Time Warner Cable's spokeswoman has claimed in the press that 85 percent of the current increase comes from "purchasing programming, especially sports," referring to an increase in the cost of ESPN programs. This is roughly double the amount of the rate increase justified by programming in 2000. What about customers who do not even watch sports?

Keeping prices reasonable is not the only priority of consumers. We also expect good quality service. As a member of the New York Better Business Bureau's 2001 Honesty Campaign, Time Warner Cable is officially committed to business integrity, trustworthiness and good standing in the community. So are they reneging on their commitment? Are we going to be paying more but getting less in customer service?

Their customers are the ones who know. And you must report your complaints to the appropriate local, state and federal agencies (the addresses of some of which are on your cable bill). In the future, New York will benefit if more customers set aside their status as passive consumers and take action as citizens.

Why not tell us too?

Corporate Complaints:
Waiting weeks for utility installation? Spending hours on the phone waiting to speak with a customer service representative? Who would you nominate as the Worst Corporate Citizen of New York? Did the city do anything to help? Tell us your story. Please e-mail with subject head "Corporate Complaints" to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Thank you.

At a time when Time Warner Cable has announced that it is raising its rates once again, at more than triple the rate of inflation, it has lowered its standards of service to its customers.

That at least is the experience of one customer who called me irate and frustrated -- and since he had a good tale to tell (and also because he is my editor), I listened. He had telephoned Time Warner to send somebody to repair his cable, because the reception was full of snow. It took an astonishing nine appointments over a period of six weeks, about 60 hours of waiting -- four days home from the office -- conversations with about 30 representatives from Time Warner AND they accidentally cut his telephone lines while attempting to fix his cable service. Oops.

He wrote a letter to Time Warner Cable's director of customer service. The company claims that all complaints are answered within two business days of receipt and that matters are resolved within 10 days. But he did not receive any letter in response after more than a month of waiting, and matters were certainly not resolved. So he sent a second letter to the director - only this time, he sent a copy to three agencies: the New York Better Business Bureau, the New York State Public Service Commission, the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT)

The response was swift and excessive. Not only has his cable been fixed, but representatives from two different departments of Time Warner Cable, customer service and public affairs, have been calling HIM on the telephone (rather than the other way around). Each time they make reference to "the letter you wrote to the city." It is the New York Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, then, that is the hero of this tale. And there is some evidence that they will continue to be the heroes, with Michael Bloomberg's appointment on December 19 of Vincent La Padula, formerly the chief of staff of DoITT, as the Senior Advisor to the Mayor. His job will be in part to oversee DoITT.

Time Warner Cable, on the other hand, is clearly this tale's villain. As of this writing two months after his cable first broke down, he still has not received any written correspondence from Time Warner Cable in response to his letters, and this is not the only explicit company policy the company has broken in this case. It claims on its web site, for example, that it respects the schedules of its busy customers and aims to limit waiting around for appointment (In all but one of the appointments, they repair technicians showed up later than the latest time they said they would). The representatives also have told him that in their computers they only have a record of two appointments made with him, not the nine that the repair technicians actually made with him, which is contrary to Time Warner Cable's policy of recording all appointments in its customer database.

Was all this just a fluke, or is this the norm in cable customer service?

In fact, the number of complaints against cable companies in New York City went up 50 percent from August to September, and surged once more in the month of October, according to the New York State Public Service Commission. Time Warner Cable's complaints in Brooklyn alone more than quadrupled from September to October. In fairness, these Brooklyn October complaints numbered only 21 (up from four in September). In the whole state, in the month of October, the cable company Cablevision received 84 complaints and Time Warner Cable received 135, 39 of them in Manhattan. And the New York Better Business Bureau, based on the small number of complaints it receives, lists Time Warner Cable as having a satisfactory record, meaning in part that it is free of an unusual volume of complaints.

Anecdotal evidence suggests many customers do not go to the trouble of making official complaints to the relevant regulatory agencies, so these numbers may not reflect the true level of dissatisfaction . But they are all we have to go on. Still, even accepting the official complaints as an accurate gauge, it is clear that the numbers have gone up dramatically in the last few months. The level of dissatisfaction is on the rise.

Is this a reflection of anti-consumer policies, or is there another explanation?

The cable company offers another explanation. Harriet Novet, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable, explained the surge in complaints in Brooklyn, for example, to the fact that many technicians were borrowed from that borough to aid in the round-the-clock efforts at the Mayor's Command Center in Manhattan. And, in general, the events of September 11th resulted in significant increased requests for cable, and that is what caused busy phone lines and extended waits for appointments. According to Time Warner Cable's web site, they are in need of more technicians, and they are hiring them.

This is of course a compelling response. Cable is widely regarded as the savior of news and information following September 11 as a result of interrupted broadcast and radio transmissions. (Many broadcast stations used the antenna on top of the Twin Towers.)

But this does not explain how, despite reduced customer service (for whatever reason), the cable companies can justify their decision to raise their rates by up to seven percent on February 1. This means that Time Warner Cable customers will pay about $2.70 more for standard cable service. According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), last year, cable rates were increased by as much as 5.8 percent. So, why is the government backing Yet another rate increase now during a period of recession and low inflation (and poor service)?

Time Warner Cable attributes the increase to increased programming costs. Last year, the FCC reported that programming costs accounted for 41.4 to 44.1 percent of increases. But a Time Warner Cable's spokeswoman has claimed in the press that 85 percent of the current increase comes from "purchasing programming, especially sports," referring to an increase in the cost of ESPN programs. This is roughly double the amount of the rate increase justified by programming in 2000. What about customers who do not even watch sports?

Keeping prices reasonable is not the only priority of consumers. We also expect good quality service. As a member of the New York Better Business Bureau's 2001 Honesty Campaign, Time Warner Cable is officially committed to business integrity, trustworthiness and good standing in the community. So are they reneging on their commitment? Are we going to be paying more but getting less in customer service?

Their customers are the ones who know. And you must report your complaints to the appropriate local, state and federal agencies (the addresses of some of which are on your cable bill). In the future, New York will benefit if more customers set aside their status as passive consumers and take action as citizens.

Why not tell us too?

Corporate Complaints:
Waiting weeks for utility installation? Spending hours on the phone waiting to speak with a customer service representative? Who would you nominate as the Worst Corporate Citizen of New York? Did the city do anything to help? Tell us your story. Please e-mail with subject head "Corporate Complaints" to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Thank you. Laura Forlano is a doctoral student studying communication technology policy at Columbia University.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Changes Ahead?


It's now been more than a year since the Supreme Court stepped in to bring the 2000 Presidential election to its unsatisfying conclusion. The Court's intervention embittered many Americans who believed that votes should not be left uncounted and miscounted. But the events surrounding the election brought an important consolation for advocates of a more open and vibrant democracy - the election debacle triggered an intense focus on the sorry state of our voting processes. The dirty little secret of our democracy had been made public - and at long last, it seemed, something would be done. From all corners, we heard cries for reform and promises of upgrades, new standards, and resources for improvement.

Bills were introduced, commissions formed, and reports issued. But where are we, one year later? For the most part, the way Americans vote will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future despite vigorous calls for improvement from reformers and particularly from African-American communities, where the history of disenfranchisement is too fresh to be brushed aside as bureaucratic business as usual. (As readers of this column and the Gotham Gazette well know, the experience of the 2000 elections prompted a fierce and partially successful effort in New York City to force the Board of Elections to improve its procedures for the 2001 City elections.)

Most notably, at the federal level, progress toward some reforms is just now emerging. In mid-December, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a compromise bill that promises unprecedented federal financial support for state and local improvement of election procedures - $2.65 billion is allocated to the states to improve their election systems, including $400 million to replace the notorious punchcard machines that gave the country "hanging" and "dimpled" chads.

But that's where the good news ends. The bill fails to address the most obvious defects uncovered after the 2000 presidential election. It includes no minimum standards for voting machine errors - and thus, fails to provide a federal safeguard to ensure that votes will be counted equally in all states. The bill does not require new machines, even those purchased with federal money, provide voters a chance to correct errors in voting. Again, if we learned anything from Florida's experience, it's that these are critical safeguards.

In addition, the House bill does not grant voters the right to cast a provisional ballot when their name does not appear on the poll list (New York voters already have this right). It also does nothing to improve access for those with disabilities and even takes a step backward by allowing states to purge voters who missed two successive federal elections.

The story in the Senate is much more hopeful. A bipartisan bill that appears on the verge of passing included these critical safeguards. That bill would set minimum standards for the accuracy and accessibility of voting systems. Also, under the Senate bill, voting technology that would allow a voter to verify and correct mistakes on his or her ballot would be required by 2006. All states would be required to offer provisional ballots.

While almost every state convened a commission to study their election process, only a handful have made significant progress in reforming their election in the past year. Florida, the obvious poster child, quickly enacted a comprehensive election modernization program that would overhaul the vote counting rules, improve election administration, and bring in new voting technology. Georgia and Maryland also passed statewide reforms. Many states are apparently waiting to see whether Congress is going to provide money for upgrading the voting systems before they commit state money from their treasuries already depleted by the recession.

New York, like most states, is still studying its problems, which include antiquated machinery and a tradition of mismanagement that routinely disenfranchises voters. The Governor's Task Force on Election Modernization issued a tepid interim report in May and is promising a more comprehensive report and recommendations by April 2002. The Task Force addressed the problems with the state's voting machines, recommended more study, and a handful of suggestions to improve machine maintenance while the state awaits the upgrade in technology. Remarkably, the Task Force took little notice of the state's consistent failures to comply with the National Voter Registration Act ("motor voter"), which permits voter registration when applying for a driver's license and public benefits, and other concerns relating to the management of voter registration lists. Perhaps the final report will squarely face the mismanagement issues and other problems.

The flaws in our electoral process will continue to undermine our democracy - even as we should be making it stronger. The 2002 elections are just around the corner - and in no time at all, we will be facing another presidential election. Most Americans want a better election system - and believe that everyone's vote should have equal chance of being counted. Passage of the Senate bill - and then its embrace by the House and the President - is an important first step toward real reform.

Susan Reefer is a Republican pollster and media strategist. She is based in New York City.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years