Participatory Democracy: Access Granted or Access Denied?
[This is the third installment in our interns’ chronicles of their adventures interviewing members of the public as well as elected officials about government and the relationships between voters and those elected to represent them. The interviews are part of our developing Participatory Democracy civic education program.]
Throughout this summer, we (Punam and Jonathan) have been helping create the Participatory Democracy program, which explains our government as, among other things, an easily accessible system. We have found this description to be both true on some levels and false in others.
During our Man and Woman on the Street interviews, many people voiced their beliefs that government and politicians do not care about what individuals think. They feel isolated, withdrawn, and detached from the system. So we went to the source itself to ask staffers and legislators how they felt about the general public. Do legislators care? Do they hear you? Do they provide access?
As we called different offices, we made some rather interesting discoveries. We found some offices to be far more receptive than others. This may have been due to time constraints, date conflicts, or the fact that we had a camera and the fear of exposure. Nevertheless, it was clear that some legislators’ took their role as public servants more seriously than others. We wanted to test the legislators’ actions as well as their words. Not only did we want them to open their doors, allowing us to come in to their office and visit them, but we also asked, on videotape, about their past interactions with their constituents and how it had affected their voting records.
Some offices were very receptive, showed us the inner workings of the political world in ways that even we thought impossible. They showed us how government should truly be: friendly, open, and honest. While we had these great experiences, there were others who were … oh, how should we put it, more like an ‘N Sync concert: everyone can see the show, but only a select few can go backstage. We want to make clear that these differences had nothing to do with partisan affiliation; we had both good and disappointing experiences with lawmakers and staff on both sides of the aisle.
In particular we would like to specifically recognize Representative Elliott Naishtat (D-Austin) and his warm and informative staff, who made us feel welcome and right at home, as it should be. We are not big donors or professional lobbyists, and we did not come from his district, but we were Texans seeking to inquire about our government, and that was enough for them. Chief of Staff Dorothy Browne truly exemplifies open government. Without us asking, she offered a show-and-tell tour of the office. She showed us how opinion phone calls are recorded, the files of the legislation the representative pushed this session, and the method by which they respond to letters. We thank Dorothy Browne for her willingness and surprising openness to showing us the details of their operation. Our meeting with Rep. Naishtat that followed reiterated the openness Dorothy had shown us. He told us that the capitol is our building, and that this government belongs to the people; therefore it is his job to listen to us.
Rep. Naishtat’s staff and Rep. Elliott Naishtat himself (or Elliott, as he asked us to call him) shared a wealth of information and interesting anecdotes with us. If you would like to access Representative Elliott Naishtat’s interview, you will have to download our civic education presentation when it becomes available at truecourageaction.net. Sorry — access to this exclusive interview does not come quite as easy as access to your government.
Until next time,
Jonathan and Punam
Posted: July 24th, 2007 under Civic education.
