Bill Overview
Title: To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia to transmit Acts of the District of Columbia to Congress in electronic form.
Description: This bill allows the Council of the District of Columbia to transmit certain acts, including those amending the District Charter, in such form as it may choose, including in electronic form.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Residents of the District of Columbia
Estimated Size: 703000
- The bill primarily impacts the legislative process in the District of Columbia by modernizing the method of transmitting legislative acts to Congress.
- The target population includes members of the Council of the District of Columbia who will utilize electronic transmission.
- Residents of the District of Columbia could be affected indirectly as the legislative process may become more efficient.
- The U.S. Congress could be impacted as they receive these transmissions, although the method of transmission does not change the content of what they receive.
- Overall, the day-to-day lives of U.S. citizens and global citizens will largely remain unaffected by a change in transmission format.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically affects the administrative process in how the District of Columbia communicates with Congress. The change from paper to electronic format is a minor administrative adjustment but can lead to efficiencies.
- The budget constraint suggests that any tangible impacts on residents' wellbeing are likely indirect and potentially long-term through administrative efficiency gains in the DC government.
- Most residents of the District of Columbia may not directly feel the impact of this policy on an individual level; hence, their Cantril scores might not significantly change.
- The well-being impact on a broader scale is difficult to ascertain due to the highly specialized nature of this administrative change. It is more relevant to the functioning of the local government.
- Given the nature of the policy, it is reasonable to assume that most of the general US population will not perceive any change directly affecting their lives.
Simulated Interviews
City Council Member (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will streamline our workflow in the council office.
- It reduces the time and resources spent on physical documentation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Lobbyist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a sensible move to align with modern communication standards.
- It may speed up how quickly we can react to new legislative changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
IT Specialist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a positive change and in line with the digital transformation of governmental processes.
- This is a small but important step towards modernizing how our local government operates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Legal Advisor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could potentially reduce errors associated with manual paperwork.
- It's an administrative change but important for efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Local business owner (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this policy would impact my business or personal life.
- Government paperwork is not something that directly affects us small business owners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an administrative procedure that aligns with my studies on government efficiency.
- I'm curious to see how such a small change might have broader implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Government Employee (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It seems like a logical step forward to communicate digitally.
- I don't see how it would affect my daily life now that I'm retired.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Non-profit Director (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm always supportive of measures that increase governmental efficiency.
- This is positive, but we're more concerned with the content transmitted than the format.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Federal Employee (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't affect my role, as it pertains only to DC.
- Electronic transmissions make sense, but it's not groundbreaking for us federally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Congressional Staffer (Arlington, VA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It could make our work a bit quicker as we deal with documents.
- However, it's a minor change in our day-to-day operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000 (Low: $10000, High: $25000)
Year 2: $15000 (Low: $10000, High: $25000)
Year 3: $15000 (Low: $10000, High: $25000)
Year 5: $15000 (Low: $10000, High: $25000)
Year 10: $15000 (Low: $10000, High: $25000)
Year 100: $15000 (Low: $10000, High: $25000)
Key Considerations
- The transition to electronic transmission will involve minimal setup costs, mainly in administrative changes.
- Sustainability efforts are key, reducing paper usage and associated waste.
- Long-term savings from reduced physical mailing costs.