MEMO

To: Gary Orben, Chief Clerk of Pike County

CC: Pike County Commissioners
From: Nick Troiano, Georgetown University
RE: e-government 2.0

Governments at every level are increasingly using new technology and the

Internet to enhance the way they serve the public and create avenues for citizen

participation. This kind of electronic government, known as e-government and more

recently as e-government 2.0 to include the social Web, has enormous potential to meet

and exceed the level of responsiveness and accountability that the public has come to

expect from public institutions and elected officials. Investment in e-government

infrastructure not only pays off in cost-saving efficiencies, but also in greater amounts of

public trust and confidence. I offer an assessment of Pike County’s current e-government

usage and recommendations for improvements focusing on three specific areas:

1. Communication (revamping the County Web site and facilitating dialogue)

2. Transparency (increasing access to public meetings and information)

3. Online Service Delivery (enabling more online transactions)

Other counties referenced in this memo are those that were part of a comparative analysis

that included eleven similar Pennsylvania counties based on population size (Figure 1).

Communication

The exchange of information between government and citizens is the most

fundamental use of e-government technology. There is a large amount of information that

government has to communicate to citizens, and likewise, a large amoung of questions of

feedback citizens would like to communicate to government. Web sites are the most basic
mechanism to facilitate this kind of interaction. Pike County’s Web site, PikePA.org, is

what e-government practitioners would classify as “brochureware.” This is regarded as

the first in a four-stage process of online development, which goes on to evolve into

partial service delivery, portals and interactive democracy. Brochureware consists of

static displays of information, much like a physical brochure offers. While it is certainly

better than no Web site at all, it offers little or no opportunity visitors to search, interact

or communicate and should be improved upon.

Recommendation 1.1: Allow citizens to electronically contact their government.

For half of the county’s 30 departments and offices listed on PikePA.org, citizens are

limited to a list of telephone numbers and physical addresses; no email address or

electronic contact forms are available, including the Pike County Commissioners. Eight

out of ten comparable counties offer an email address for citizens to directly contact their

elected Commissioners or administrative aids. To strike a balance between having no

means for electronic communication and concerns of officials being harassed via

personal email, Armstrong County has devised a recommended solution by embedding a

contact form into the Web pages for each department or elected official.i

Recommendation 1.2: Reorganize and upgrade the Web site. PikePA.org

organizes its information through separate pages for each county office and department.

This might sense for those in government who understand which services fall under each

department, but the county Web site should be reorganized with a citizen-centric

approach. For example, it may not be intuitive that a dog’s license would fall under the

Pike County Treasurer’s page. One recommended solution is to mirror Venango County,

which offers an FAQ page for visitors featuring questions like “where can I get a copy of

a deed?” and “how do I pay delinquent taxes” with links to the appropriate site pages.ii
Bradford County employs the same idea on its “How Do I?” page.iii In addition,

PikePA.org should transition to a content management system whereby each page can be

updated by various site administrators and thus be kept more up to date. The County

Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania has a program to help counties adopt

Microsoft SharePoint, which combines intranet and Web hosting solutions.iv Huntingdon

County is one of many using this system, which provides the infrastructure necessary to

make further upgrades that are more focused on interaction and service delivery.v Site

design and aesthetics can be revisited at a later point, but functionality and usability

should be immediate concerns.

Recommendation 1.3: Create a two-way conversation where citizens already are.

Communication has evolved from a system where information seekers visit specific Web

pages to retrieve information to a system where the information goes to them. The most

rudimentary form of this new means of communication is an email newsletter, such as

those offered by Wayne and Bradford counties. Even without a newsletter, a “recent

news” section of the Web site with a RSS feed would also serve this purpose for citizens

who use services like Google Reader. In addition, social media is an increasingly richer

and more ubiquitous method of communication. The County should create and maintain a

Facebook fan page and Twitter account. Bradford Country, for example, uses Twitter to

update followers about meeting dates, office closures, election information and more.vi It

is vital that communication not be unidirectional. Citizens should be able to post

questions and receive feedback. While Somerset County does not use social media, it

utilizes its own Web site to engage citizens through a discussion board.vii One citizen, for

example, posted to ask, “I need a copy of my marriage certificate. We were married in

Windber in 1975 and I'm not sure who to contact.” A staff member promptly replied,
“Anna, Please contact the Register of Wills at (814) 445-1548.” This is the type of two-

way communication citizens expect from government.

Transparency

Recommendation 2.1: Post more information online. Increasing communication

with citizens and improving the county Web site are useful ways to increase transparency

in government if the public has easy access to the information it is looking for. A

majority of comparable counties have the their budgets online, including historical

information. Most also have a calendar of meeting times, agendas and minutes. As early

as 2002, PikePA.org offered this information but does not any longer.viii Pike County

does should again adopt these practices. The County can go one step further by

maximizing the usability of the information. For example, PikePA.org could offer a

calendar that citizens can subscribe to and set automatic reminder emails.

In addition, Pike County should increase the accessibility of public information

through the Right to Know Law by accepting and processing requests online. Perry

County is currently experimenting with such a system, which significantly reduces the

amount of time and effort citizens need in order to obtain public information.ix It is

important to note that these requests would be less frequent (and thus take less staff time

to fulfill) if the country were proactive in posting more information online, such as when

it began posting sample candidate ballots on its elections Web page. There is much more

information that can be posted online. For example, Allegheny County also posts

candidate campaign finance reports.x PikePA.org should enable visitors to locate

information through a search feature to facilitate this process.

 Recommendation 2.2: Live stream and archive public meetings. The notion that

one has to be in a certain physical place at a certain time in order to interact with and

impact their government is becoming outdated. This is especially the case in a rural

county where many people must commute to work and are not able to attend public

meetings. The weekly Commissioners meetings should be live-streamed online and

archived. Venango County uses a service called American Webcasting to accomplish this

task.xi A free solution can be used through the online service Ustream.tv. This platform

also allows citizens to engage in a live chat during the meeting, post comments and tag

certain sections of the video that would be of interest to others. Clips can be cut and

posted on other Web sites, such as local news sites to allow for better reporting and a

more informed public. At the very least, audio recordings could be made available after

meetings through an .mp3 file on PikePA.org.

Online Service Delivery

One of the most promising aspects of e-government is its ability to move

government services online, making them more accessible and easier to use for citizens,

and increasing efficiency and reducing costs for government. This is the difference

between being able to download a PDF of a form online and having to mail it in, and

being able to complete a certain task without having to leave a computer. Currently, Pike

County offers citizens the ability to submit an application for a dog license online.xii It

also offers an online GIS (geographic information access) system.xiii

Recommendation 3.1: Allow other applications to be submitted online. In

addition to dog licenses, PikePA.org should offer an automated way for citizens to
complete applications for the small games of chance licenses, bingo licenses and

sportsman’s permits. The same online infrastructure can be duplicated for these services.

Recommendation 3.2: Allow citizens to pay taxes online. While no counties the

size of Pike County in Pennsylvania currently offer online tax payment, Columbia

County offers citizens an online solution to paying delinquent real estate taxes.xiv Many

larger counties throughout the country, including Allegheny County, have contracted

with 3rd party services like the Official Payments Corporation, to allow all tax payments

online.xv The County should explore similar methods.

Recommendation 3.3: Create an online procurement center. Perhaps the best

opportunity to use e-government for cost savings will come through a system of online

procurement. Chester County, although larger than Pike, offers a model for such a

system.xvi Requests for quotes and proposals, along with other bid information and a

public surplus auction, are available online through this Web page. It is a reasonable

assumption that by placing this information on the Internet, more companies would bid

on needed goods and services therefore increasing competition and decreasing the costs

to government.

Implementation

Before any resources are dedicated to reevaluating and implementing e-

government upgrades in Pike County, even recommendations contained in this memo,

there needs to be buy-in from County leaders and the public more generally. An

employee familiar with IT decisions in Bradford County credited much of the county’s

advancement to a single Commissioner who recognized the potential for improvement.xvii

Leadership on this issue is essential and can help create a culture that supports the
adoption of new technology in helping government do its job more efficiently and

effectively. In addition, a conversation should be initiated with a diverse group citizens,

perhaps through an online survey or using Google Moderator, to set e-government

priorities for the county and determine what citizens most use and most need from the

County’s Web site. In implementing social media technology, the County should also

consider setting guidelines for its departments and employees. Sample policies are

offered online by organizations that seek to help local governments in this endeavor.xviii

Feasibility

In conversations with information technology officers of various counties, two

primary obstacles to advancing e-government adoption are apparent: cost and personnel.

Many of the aforementioned recommendations in section one and two can be executed

without significant investment of resources. Creative planning can minimize where

resources are needed, particularly in web development.

Pike County currently has a single contracted individual to handle all of the

county’s information technology needs, including hardware, software and the Web site.xix

This seems to be an inefficient way to deal with the large and differing type of IT work

that exists. Even though a full-time IT position is likely needed, the County should

consider contracting with a dedicated Web firm to handle the development on the Web

site infrastructure. While this may frontload costs, a site built on a content management

system will be more easily self-sustained and require less outside site maintenance over

the long-term. This would also allow a better budgeting process whereby the County

Commissioners can designate specific line items for particular areas of information

technology.
 The County can also pursue cost-sharing measures by working with the thirteen

municipalities located within the country. A revamp of PikePA.org can include dedicated

pages for each municipality, which requires much less online infrastructure, in return for

a financial contribution to help defray development and hosting costs. This model is

already being used in Pennsylvania by Bedford, Burks and Huntingdon counties and

would serve Pike County municipalities well, since a considerable number do not even

have a Web site. Those that do can retain their own look and feel. The Web program

earlier mentioned that is offered by County Commissioner Association of Pennsylvania

costs about $2,891 in annual costs for storage, hosting and development.v

The County should also consider forming partnerships with local schools and

Universities who might have students interested in volunteering time to work on various

Web and e-government projects. Huntingdon County was successful in finding college-

age volunteers. At Delaware Valley High School, a co-circular program known as DV-

World just recently ended when the district launched its new Web site and no longer

needed students to maintain the previous one. This program, and the displaced students

from it, might be a logical place to start.

Conclusion

While adopting modern e‐government practices might be overwhelming, 

especially for a County that has by most measures fallen behind its peers, it is no 

reason to stall the process of beginning to formulate and execute a plan. There are 

various stakeholders in the community who will join in this effort to make local 

government more open, accessible and responsive. 
Figure 1

Officials’ Posted Online Posted Social Search Electronic News

County Email Budget Service Minutes Media Feature Newsletter Feed
Armstrong X X X X X X
Bradford X X X X X
Carbon X X X
Clearfield X X
Columbia X
Huntington X X X X X
Mifflin X X X X X
Pike X
Somerset X X
Venango X X X X
Wayne X X X X

This table is comprised of ten “Class Six” counties most comparable in terms of population to
Pike County, ranging from 45,771 to 82,442 residents according to the Census update in 2006.

Figure 2

Screenshot of www.PikePA.org.
Endnotes:

                                                        
i
http://www.co.armstrong.pa.us/contactinformation/contact-list/78-departments/7-
commissioners
ii
http://www.co.venango.pa.us/Faqs/Index.htm
iii
http://www.bradfordcountypa.org/FAQs/

iv http://www.pacounties.org/TechnologyServices/Pages/WebSiteProgram.aspx 

 
v
Kathie Glassel, CCAP
vi
http://twitter.com/BradfordCounty
vii
http://www.co.somerset.pa.us/messageboard.asp

viii http://web.archive.org/web/20020802215105/http://www.pikepa.org/ 

 
ix
http://perrydev.pacounties.org/Pages/New_Open_Records_Request.aspx
x
http://apps.county.allegheny.pa.us/campaignfinanceview/
xi
http://www.co.venango.pa.us/Minutes/Index.htm
xii
http://www.padoglicense.com/
xiii
http://www.pikegis.org
xiv
http://www.columbiapa.org/assessment/online.php
xv
http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/realestate/payonlinecover.asp
xvi
http://dsf.chesco.org/contracts/site/default.asp
xvii
Michelle Shedden, Secretary for Bradford County Commissioners
xviii
http://www.digitalcommunitiesblogs.com/munigov/2009/11/social-media-policies-
leading.php
xix
Gary Orben, Chief Clerk of Pike County