Article | Discussion | Edit | History |

E-mail Response Policy

From DoWire Wiki

More UK highlights and priority briefs

Final Version in Word


Lead Editor(s): User:AmyCooper

Editors and visitors, press "Edit" above to contribute.


E-mail Response Policy

Definition:

An e-mail response policy is a service pledge to citizens describing response policies and upfront exclusions (e.g. non-constituents), the expected time for response, the method of communication, and the recourse process if a response is not received.


Summary:

An e-mail response policy (ERP) explains to the public how the government or an elected representative will manage any communication or correspondence they receive via email.

Whether two sentences or two pages, an ERP is a public acknowledgment of how elected representatives or governments will handle and/or reply to received email. Beyond this sole requirement, an ERP can be improved by including all or some of the following features:

  • advising senders to indicate whether they desire a response;
  • an indication of which mail will be responded to, usually constituents;
  • instruction on where to find information that may not require an email be sent;
  • disclaimers stating that email responses may not always be possible (due to service failures/requested hardcopy information) advising senders to provide enough information (e.g. postal address) so that a secondary means of response can be sent;
  • disclaimers explaining that the hazards of email correspondence may disallow responses to include certain personal or privileged information.


Rationale and Objectives:

What can you use the feature for?

  • Facilitating back and forth interaction between constituents and elected representatives.
  • Facilitating back and forth interaction between constituents and all levels of government.
  • Enhancing the legitimacy of email as a valid and successful forum for receiving information from and expressing opinion to elected representatives and government.

Why use it? (Compared to other options)

  • Email is the most convenient means of communication. It negates the inconveniences associated with other communication options. Face-to-face interaction requires the making and keeping of prearranged appointments. Telephone conversations, whether by mobile or land-line, require communication to occur within given office hours. Postal mail incurs at least a one-day delay between the postage and delivery of correspondence. Facsimile transactions have lessened in popularity (see no. 4 of Top Related "How to" Online Resources below), have comparatively low resolution, and do not show colour. Email is free, more common, can be sent and received instantly with colour attachments, and is more versatile with respect to resolution.
  • Modern democracy requires that citizens are able to communicate to, and receive communication from, their elected representatives and government. An ERP facilitates and cements this relationship by making clear to citizens what will happen to their mail once it has been sent.
  • If there is a public perception that elected representatives or governments do not answer or disregard their unfavourable email, citizens may be disinclined to use the medium at all. An ERP can work to mend this breakdown in communication by making email a legitimate means of communication.

Benefits - Describe the top benefits for each group

  • All Users: An ERP facilitates open communication between the public and its governments or elected representatives.
  • Citizens: People are given a convenient means of communication and a clear understanding of how their communication will be processed.
  • Councillors: As citizens’ confidence in email as a legitimate means of communication is increased, more will correspond with their councillors to provide the feedback and suggestions councillors wish to hear from their constituents.
  • Local Administration: For administrative staff, an ERP facilitates time management, given that staff are able to set aside time to respond to email, as such does not require the same immediacy as answering a phone call.


Limitations and Cautions

  • Though email is widespread within modern day homes and often available in public libraries or Internet cafes, it should be recognised that not all citizens have access to email.
  • Having access does not guarantee ability to use email. Citizens’ literacy, language, and computer literacy all affect their ability to use email.
  • There appears a tendency for elected officials to respond only to constituent (as opposed to citizen) email.


Successes collected projects

- Successful Implementations

  • Example 1: U.S. Senator for New Mexico, Senator Jeff Bingaman.
    • Link: http://bingaman.senate.gov/Contact_Me/e-mail_policy.html
    • Usage and Results: The webpage devoted to Senator Bingaman explains he will respond to any correspondence from New Mexico residents or people with ties to the state via e-mail, or in the constituent’s preferred manner. The Senator cannot return an electronic response to people who do not meet these criteria. If constituents state they do not want a reply in the text of their message, no response will be sent. If requesting a response, constituents should receive such within two weeks. If three weeks lapse without a response, constituents are encouraged to phone the Senator’s office, check whether the message was received, and submit another copy were it not. While quick responses are possible, two months may pass before correspondence may pass through the Senator’s lengthy response and tracking process. The amount of research required to formulate an answer and the total volume of mail his office receives determine how long a reply may take.
  • Example 2: East Dorset District Council: Email Response Policy
    • Link: http://www.eastdorset.gov.uk/council/contacts/email-response-policy.htm
    • Usage and Results: East Dorset District Council has a webpage devoted to their ERP. It states that council aims to respond to all email inquiries from the public within two working days. If it is not possible for council to provide a full response within this timeframe, it will email the sender within two days to provide a likely timeframe to resolve the query. The sender is asked to inform council if he or she does not receive a response within this timeframe by contacting council’s ‘e-government officer’.
  • Example 3: United States Senator for California, Senator Barbara Boxer
    • Link: http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/ and http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
    • Usage and Results: Senator Boxer does not explicitly state the she has an email response policy; however, the essential features are communicated in the two web pages linked above. The first page asks citizens to note that it may take up to three weeks to for e-mails receive a response due to the large volume of such the senator receives. The second page explains that only Senator Boxer’s constituents, California residents, will be responded to. Other citizens are directed to contact a senator from their home state. There is additional information for constituents explaining for which queries the e-mail web form is best to use and how to inquire about other particulars.

Further Information

  • While some elected officials do not have a ERP, many communicate above their email web forms that a response will be sent at some stage. For example: “If you are writing from within this state, include your full name and address to receive a written response” or “We will make contact as soon as possible to assist you further.”
  • Many governments/councils have an ‘E-mail Policy’ (EP) explaining how staff are to handle e-mail internally, but these are not ERPs as they do not explain how email should be responded to and in what timeframe. Such EPs are important but lack the customer service aspect of ERPs.
  • Many governments have a local search engine enabling citizens to find out who their local elected representative is and their contact details.

Top Related "How-to" Online Resources

  • Title: Mitchell, Selina. ‘Getting Pollies' E-ttention’ The Australian 8 May 2001 - An article discussing emailing politicians from both the US Congress and Australian Federal Parliament. Link: http://us.altnews.com.au/nuke/print.php?sid=2962
  • Title: Queensland Legislative Assembly Contacts – An explanation of how different types of emails are handled, and suggestions as to where specific queries/comments should be directed. Link: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Contact.htm
  • Title: Fax Your MP For Free- A group of UK volunteers have developed this site to enable UK citizens to identify and fax their MP free. Though not solely a function of email, the system works with the citizen’s email account to verify their identity, send them a copy of the fax, and allow a response from the MP. The system works similarly to other that allow faxes to be sent by email, with the volunteers having written the ‘web to fax gateway’ themselves. The site includes MP response statistics.Link: http://www.faxyourmp.com
  • Title: Australian Parliament Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff Annual Report 2002-2003: Output Group 2: Client Use of Infrastructure; Number of Telephone outward calls, Facsimile pages sent and Internet mail messages – A graph demonstrating how e-mail is currently the most common means of communication from Australia’s Parliament House. Link: http://www.aph.gov.au/dps/publications/anrep2003/02/03.html


-- For Drafting Purposes --

Audio background comments: http://dowire.org/media/briefs

Single Unique Keyword: e-response


Link to Shared Bookmarks (via del.icio.us) for drafting assistance: http://del.icio.us/tag/e-response

Shared Bookmarks provides additional details.

Retrieved from "http://www.dowire.org/wiki/E-mail_Response_Policy"
 
more groups wiki blog newswire home home