In the view of several congressmen and staff in the present study, and of this researcher, a basic goal of emergent public policy should be to realize whatever long-range potential the emergent telecommunications may have for an improved political dialogue. Emergent policy should be concurrently geared toward:

Assisting congressmen (and other public officials) in better

meeting their legitimate communication needs.

· Achieving fair and balanced access to communication channels for all political participants, including incumbent office-holders, challengers, and representatives of constituent groups or interests (both public and private).

Of course, when and how the emergent telecommunications become available depends on a number of uncertain regulatory, institutional, and political factors, even assuming that conditions of technical feasibility and economic viability are met. And public policy on telecommunications can include, for example: technical standards; research and development support; controls on ownership and operation; and regulation of rates and usage for commercial, educational, governmental, public safety, personal, or political purposes, among others.

For the future, public policy will most likely have to be tailored to the characteristics and potential applications of specific emergent channels in order to ensure that the potential advantages or beneficial effects are maximized, and that the possible disadvantages or detrimental effects are minimized. Further research along the lines of this exploratory study will be of fundamental importance to the development of such public policy on emergent telecommunications.

At the minimum, an effort should be made to interpret and assess the data and analysis of this study in terms of possible advantages and disadvantages (beneficial and detrimental effects) of alternative political communication systems (and the requisite public policies) on at least four levels of society and along many specific dimensions:

• The time budget, financial budget, communication channels, information sources, and the political role, power, and security of

the congressman.

The time budget, financial budget, communication channels, information sources, and the political efficacy, competence, and participation of the constituent.

The time budget, financial budget, communication channels, information sources, and the political role, effectiveness, and power of Congress as an institution.

And political feedback, responsiveness, adaptability, opportunity, leadership, and change in the larger socio-political system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The basic idea for this study initially evolved about four years ago from a "Congressional Policy Decision Action Research Project" undertaken

here at The George Washington University Program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology. While this Action Research project progressed only through

the concept validation stage and did not continue in a formal sense after Spring 1970, I had served at that time as research assistant to the project director and have since continued my interest and involvement in the area of congressional information and communication systems.

In these last four years, my development and completion of this research benefited at one time or another from the assistance of many individuals who as a group are indicative of the interdisciplinary nature of the study: the chairman of my research advisory committee, Prof. Richard F. Ericson (Management/Systems Science); the Director of the Program of Policy Studies, Prof. Louis H. Mayo (Public Law/Technology Assessment); and Profs. Gordon L. Lippitt (Behavioral Sciences), Stephen R. Chitwood (Public Administration/Public Policy), John M. Logsdon (Political Science/Public Affairs), and Marvin M. Wofsey (Information Technology/Management Science), all on the faculty at The George Washington University.

Thanks go also to Robert L. Chartrand (Information Sciences Specialist at the Congressional Research Service); Vary Coates (Political Science/ Technology Assessment), Charles Lamb (Political Science), and Ernest Weiss (Technology Assessment/Policy Analysis) of the Program of Policy Studies;

vii

George E. Humphries (Technology Assessment); Fred B. Wood III (Computer-
Communication Engineering/Systems Science); Steve and Emily Fishe; and Erica
Wood (Public Law), all of whom have contributed ideas to and/or reviewed

parts of the research manuscript.

As for the survey interview phase of the research, the level of participation for most congressmen and senior staff from the 40 offices in the sample far exceeded expectations, due in part to the assistance of Rep. Don Edwards (D-Cal) and his staff in pre-testing and facilitating my access and interview strategies. Since these participants are nowhere else acknowledged

in this report, I want to take the opportunity here to express my appreciation to the following members and their staffs:

Reps. Brock Adams (D-Wash), John B. Anderson (R-I11), John Brademas (D-Ind), Garry Brown (R-Mich), Yvonne B. Burke (D-Cal), Bill Chappell D-Fla), James C. Cleveland (R-NH), William S. Cohen (R-Me), Barber B. Conable (R-NY), John C. Culver (D-Iowa), John W. Davis (D-Ga), William L. Dickinson (R-Ala), John N. Erlenborn (R-I11), Donald M. Fraser (DMinn), Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash), Gilbert Gude (R-Md), Augustus F. Hawkins (D-Cal), Wayne L. Hays (D-Ohio), H. John Heinz (R-Pa), Torbert H. MacDonald (D-Mass), Robert McClory (R-111), John Y. McCollister (R-Neb), William S. Moorhead (D-Pa), Charles A. Mosher (R-Ohio), John E. Moss (D-Cal), Jerry L. Pettis (R-Cal), Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), Ralph S. Regula (R-Ohio), Donald W. Riegle (D-Mich), Teno Roncalio (D-Wyo), Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo), Dick Shoup (R-Mont), B.F. Sisk (D-Cal), Alan Steelman (R-Tex), William A. Steiger (R-Wisc), Morris K. Udall (D-Ariz), Lionel Van Deerlin (D-Ca), Joe D. Waggonner (D-La), and Bob Wilson (R-Ca). Congressional committee and support staff proved to be equally

cooperative. In addition, while not the central focus of the research, I would like to thank senior staff in the offices of Senators Brock, Cannon, Cranston, Dominick, Eagleton, Mathias, Metcalf, Mondale, Stevenson, and Taft for a comparative perspective on senatorial-constituent communication.

The research responsibility and substance of course are mine alone.

I. INTRODUCTION

Not too many years ago,

this research would have been considered

"blue-sky," "way-out," "highly speculative," and "ignorant of political reality." But the times have indeed changed. Today, many of the problems of congressional-constituent communication are matters of widespread concern.

From the perspective of the congressman, a sample of such problems commonly includes the difficulty of getting access to and communicating with citizens, and the resultant uncertainty regarding constituent opinion on the complex issues before Congress.2 At the same time, many congressmen are concerned about the heavy burden of coping with a rapidly growing interaction volume (mail, phone calls, and visits) with constituents who, for example, are affected by federal programs and don't know where else to turn for help.3 Other recurrent problems involve time, staff, office space, and

4

financial constraints which frustrate full response to constituent needs and interests," and inadequate newspaper and television coverage of congressional activities. Also important are concerns about the lack of citizen

1Charles L. Clapp, The Congressman: His Work As He Sees It

(Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1963), p. 86.

21bid., p. 159

3Kenneth G. Olson, "The Service Function of the United States

Congress," in Congress: The First Branch of Government, ed. Alfred de Grazia, (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Doubleday, 1967), p. 332.

5Donald G. Tacheron and Morris K. Udall, The Job of the Congressman:

An Introduction to Service in the U.S. House of Representatives

(Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970), pp. 101-107.

1

2

understanding of and confidence in Congress in general, and the constituent's typically limited knowledge of the legislative process, poor identification of the congressman, and low awareness of his votes on the issues." 6

The situation apparently looks a little different from the perspective of the constituent, but the problems are there just the same. These may include frustrated desires for meaningful participation in the political process due in part to very sketchy information about what their congressman is or is not doing, or to unreliable information which is primarily oriented toward personal promotion and partisan persuasion.8 More citizens perhaps now feel a greater need for consultation on legislation in response to changing social conditions, but find it increasingly difficult to get the knowledge necessary for understanding these issues and forming intelligent opinions.10

The scientific community has yet a third perspective, one that has gone through a quite significant metamorphosis. From an initial "hands-off" position with regard to research on political implications of technology, recent years have seen an upsurge in what might be called "intelligent

6John S. Saloma, Congress and the New Politics (Boston: Little-Brown, 1969), pp. 5-6; Roger H. Davidson, David M. Kovenock, and Michael K. O'Leary, Congress in Crisis: Politics and Congressional Reform (Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth, 1966), p. 77. See also U.S., Senate, Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Operations, Confidence and Concern: Citizens View American Government, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, December 3, 1973).

7Saloma, New Politics, p. 31.

8Tbid., p. 177.

Harold Sackman, Mass Information Utilities and Social Excellence

(New York: Auerbach, 1971), p. 180.

10Yehezkel Dror, Design for Policy Sciences (New York: Elsevier, 1971), p. 127; Donald N. Michael, "Democratic Participation and Technological Planning," in Information Technology in a Democracy, ed. Alan F. Westin (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 291.