Thanks for the comment. Points well taken.

I think many agencies fear that they’ll be overrun by blogging zealots who eat up a lot of time ranting incessantly about issues they don’t fully understand.
While that’s bound to be a part of the conversation, I think that most agencies will be surprised to find that they will also encounter a fair amount of quality feedback from citizens with legitimate concerns.

For the agencies who choose to engage in this medium, the challenge will be to minimize the damage done by the ranting zealots, while encouraging the participation of concerned citizens.

One thing’s for sure, new media and blogs are not going away. It’s only a matter of time before agencies at all levels of government are forced to come to terms with this new communication platform. Typically, most of the agencies that I talk to are several years behind where they should be.

You caught me on the blogging guidelines. That obviously was not my next post. Instead, I’ve been working through some ideas on how I can provide assistance to agencies who are finally waking up to the fact that the internet is changing, and that their constituents expect more from them as a result. Guidelines will certainly be a part of that program, but I’m envisioning something more comprehensive.

Details to follow.

To echo what you’ve said, it seems to me that govt agencies in this age of transparency really have no choice. The local focused conversations are going on whether or not the agencies in question want to participate in the new media.

The argument made for NOT engaging with the critiquing/blogging group usually is “the more you engage them, the more they’ll expect to be engaged.” If you believe it’s a battle of attrition, then I guess agencies can live with the consequences…and maybe the critics will just go away, but probably not. And even if they do, they’re still voters after all.

More likely is that the gadflies (as well as the rational, involved citizens with valid concerns) won’t and the more you ignore them, the more ammunition is at their disposal – for their neighbors’ ears as well as for demonizing public officials and their agents at public hearings.

Seems that having a PIO on board to address/deflect the unfair, incomplete critiques should be a basic requirement, especially in small jurisdictions where too few decision makers have the chutzpah to stand up to constituents when they stand up in any concentrated number.

I wonder what certain City Managers in particular smaller jurisdictions have to say.

~DE