Each congressional office establishes its own policies and procedures regarding the provision of casework services. These are typically based on a number of factors, which may be weighed differently in each congressional office, and include.
Under the Privacy Act, each executive branch agency that maintains records containing an individual's personally identifiable information must have a release from that individual to share information with any other entity. In general, agencies cannot reply to a congressional inquiry without a Privacy Act release signed by the constituent requesting assistance.
Most agencies will accept any signed document from a constituent stating that the constituent grants a Member of Congress access to any record held by an agency that will help resolve the constituent's inquiry.
Some agencies, however, issue their own forms and might prefer to have that form filed with them when a congressional office initiates a case inquiry. Constituent correspondence sent to a Member's office does not fall under the protections provided by the Privacy Act or any other statute safeguarding personally identifiable records.
Nevertheless, due to the high probability of an expectation of privacy concerning these communications, and Member interest in maintaining the confidentiality of office activities, many congressional offices develop a policy for safeguarding the privacy of casework-related documents.
Such a policy could include. Rules promulgated under HIPAA 31 give patients the right of access to their medical information and prohibit health plans and health-care providers from using or disclosing identifiable information to most individuals or entities without a patient's written authorization.
Examples of constituent inquiries that might involve medical information include claims for benefits under the following programs:. Some agencies have determined that congressional requests for medical information related to casework inquiries require a HIPAA release. HIPAA rules also require health plans and providers to give individuals the opportunity to object to the disclosure. Procedures for securing patient consent to release information or to provide information to third parties may vary from agency to agency.
When medical or other health-care information must be released for a casework inquiry, the agency involved might accept a signed request from the constituent to the Member as a sufficient release, or it might forward a formal release form of its own design to the congressional office for endorsement by the constituent.
Based on the priorities identified in individual congressional offices, many offices compile documentation to clarify policies related to casework.
Such documentation could specify casework goals, management procedures, and expectations of staff. Having a manual or established protocol can help offices ensure consistency in their casework practices. This type of document is not required, and there is no congressional standard regarding its format or contents.
All decisions regarding activities and operations in a Member's office are within the discretion of the Member, subject to chamber rules and relevant statute.
Procedures are typically developed by modifying standardized outlines and protocols to a particular office, based on the priorities and goals of that office and the preferences and needs of the Member's constituents. The outline below suggests questions to help develop an office casework manual addressing those demands.
Sample documents, which may be used in whole or in part, are also provided. This section of the manual could be where congressional offices explain their approach to constituent service. Information might include a consideration of the role of representation, casework as micro-level oversight, and political issues related to casework. This section could also explain the role of casework in relation to broader office goals and the caseworker's role in meeting those goals.
Questions that might be addressed in this section include the following:. This section could provide an overview of office organization and operations.
This section could incorporate the rules and guidelines regarding casework of the House or Senate, as appropriate. In addition, this section could detail rules or procedures specific to the particular congressional office. Questions that might be addressed in this section include.
Intake describes the process by which constituents request casework services and a congressional office prepares to respond. Intake procedures could define the information and materials needed from constituents, including the release of personal information under the Privacy Act of sample forms below and HIPAA, if necessary. Questions that might be addressed in developing procedures for the intake process include the following:.
Following the intake process, it is generally necessary to determine the scope of the constituent's case and to set expectations between the caseworker and the constituent. Questions that might be addressed in developing procedures for working with constituents include the following:.
At the end of the intake process, it is necessary to identify and contact the appropriate agency to address the constituent's concerns. Many congressional offices maintain lists of the executive branch agencies they work with. Questions that might be addressed in developing procedures for working with executive branch agencies include the following:. A common concern regarding casework records is their maintenance while cases are open, and their disposition when cases are concluded.
The House and Senate consider the records generated in a Member's office to be the personal property of the Member. The House Records Management Manual for Members notes that to "safeguard personal information, most Members will not transfer case files to a repository.
Routine cases could be kept in the office as long as they are open, and for two years after they are closed, after which they may be destroyed. Cases that might be kept permanently include those with bearing on agency oversight or matters of interest to the Senator or state. Those records could be retained in the office as long as they are open, and for one year after they are closed, after which they may be transferred to an archival repository.
As a Member of Congress, one of my most important responsibilities is to help constituents interact with the many agencies and offices of the federal government. Staff in my office can provide you with basic information, such as a federal agency phone number, and help you with governmental procedures, such as applying for a passport or visa.
In addition, my staff can help with matters involving other government agencies and programs, including. Although we cannot force an agency to expedite your case or act in your favor, we can frequently intervene to facilitate the processes involved, encourage an agency to give your case consideration, and sometimes advocate for a favorable outcome. My office is unable to offer legal advice or recommend an attorney. Finally, my office cannot intervene in matters under the jurisdiction of local or state governments.
I look forward to hearing from you. Initial Correspondence with Constituents Opening a Case I appreciate the opportunity to assist you. My office can frequently intervene to facilitate the processes involved, encourage an agency to give your case consideration, and sometimes advocate for a favorable outcome. My office is not able to offer legal advice or recommend an attorney, or intervene in, or influence the outcome of, cases that are under the jurisdiction of any court.
Finally, our office cannot intervene in matters under the jurisdiction of local or state governments. This requirement falls under the provisions of the Privacy Act of The release must be signed by the person directly affected, unless the person is a minor, or a third party has a notarized power of attorney. My staff and I look forward to working with you.
Some offices may wish to provide or request additional information to facilitate case management. Examples of sample text for selected purposes might include specifying methods of communication, agency-specific information that might be helpful, or how to manage health care information. A written statement helps ensure that we have a record of all the pertinent details that the agency will need. In order for us to better work with the agency on your behalf, please provide my office with any pertinent information or claim numbers in your correspondence, such as.
If you have received any related correspondence or documents from the agency involved, please send those to us as well. Since your case involves medical or healthcare information, we also ask that you complete the enclosed release specifically authorizing access to the medical records necessary to resolve your case, as required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of HIPPA.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of , as amended, 5 U. The Privacy Act of is a federal law designed to protect you from any unauthorized use and exchange of personal information by federal agencies. Any information that a federal agency has on file regarding your dealings with the United States government may not, with a few exceptions, be given to another agency or Member of Congress without your written permission.
Family members, friends, or other interested parties generally may not authorize on your behalf the release of information covered by the Privacy Act. I hope the information provided is helpful. While this is not a final resolution to your case, I do hope this information will be helpful to you. For example, Representative John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, who served as President before his election to the House, noted in his diary that he provided services to a number of constituents.
Requests included corrections of the date on a military pension certificate, discussions with the Secretary of the Treasury regarding the reappointment of a collector in Adams's district, and numerous applications for Post Office appointments.
See Leonard D. Garfield of Ohio, who later served as President, received constituent "requests to search for a miscarried letter, to secure favorable action on pension claims, to get a decision allowing a patent extension, to obtain payment of a claim Other early examples may be found in Leonard D.
For example, one study tracked the number of cases in congressional offices in the 95 th and 97 th Congresses. In the 95 th Congress, a sample of congressional offices was found to receive an average of approximately 93 new cases each week.
The number of cases in individual offices ranged from 10 to new cases per week. In the 97 th Congress, data taken from a different, larger sample of congressional offices found that the offices received an average of approximately 91 new cases per week. During that period, the range varied between 4 and cases per office per week. See John R. Johannes and John C. Johannes, "The Distribution of Casework in the U. John D. Tobin Grant and Thomas J. Dennis F.
Lee H. Hamilton, "Congressional Casework," Congressional Record , vol. Fenno, Jr. Although the perception that casework creates positive political benefits for Members of Congress appears widely held in congressional and some scholarly communities, evidence that supports that contention directly is not conclusive.
Some congressional scholars have done analyses suggesting that casework activities can serve political ends, such as increasing name recognition and creating an image of concern, and that those actions can lead to electoral success. Fiorina, Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment 2 nd ed. Other scholars have been unable to identify a direct connection. See John C. Larry P. Hamilton, "Casework," Congressional Record , vol. Johannes, "Casework as a Technique of U.
Washington: GPO, , pp. Senate Rule XLIII recognizes that not everyone who seeks assistance from a Senator will be a constituent of the state the Senator represents, and refers to anyone who might seek casework services as a "petitioner.
Examples of nonconstituents who might seek congressional intervention in administrative proceedings include foreign-born individuals seeking to emigrate to the United States, or a family or other interested party who live outside a Member's constituency on behalf of a resident constituent. In the House, guidance issued by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct suggests that "particular care should be exercised when providing assistance to individuals who are not from the Member's congressional district.
It is up to the legislature to provide them with that sense. Sixth, the legislature has to be responsive, at least to some degree, to what citizens want, as well as to what the legislature determines they need. Assuming that responsiveness is part of the representational function, we have to figure out how legislative enactments-at least on major issues-square with public demands and with public needs.
Although representing others deals with the relations between the legislature and the public, lawmaking is internally focused. It relates to the processes by which laws and policies are fashioned. Lawmaking includes several related legislative activities. The legislative role in formulating, reviewing and adopting a state budget has special significance. The budget is probably the most important bill that a legislature passes.
A legislature that performs poorly on the budget is likely to be an ineffective legislature overall. The legislature's oversight role is also worth considering; that is, how and to what extent does the legislature monitor the application and effect of the laws it has enacted.
Finally, we should pay some attention to legislative foresight; that is, how and to what extent the legislature looks ahead in order to develop policies to meet the future needs of the state.
First, it is important that individuals and groups have an opportunity to participate in the lawmaking enterprise as it takes place within the legislature. Diverse perspectives and positions on issues from both organized groups and unorganized individuals should be welcome. Lobbyists, accordingly, are an integral part of the process.
The importance of participation, however, is not meant to suggest that direct democracy, by means of the initiative and referendum, is a desirable feature of the lawmaking process. Second, the participation that counts most is that by legislators themselves. If a legislature is to perform its lawmaking function well, members must be able to play a role. Not every member, however, will choose to be active on every issue; some are better equipped and better positioned than others.
Internal democracy requires that within the senate and house power be relatively dispersed. Still, standing committees are key agencies and some legislators play larger legislative roles by virtue of their committee assignments or because of their interests or abilities. Not only do chairmen exercise leadership, but the rank and file of both the majority and minority parties also may have influence at the committee stage of the process.
In a number of states the party caucus is another locus of member influence. There issues are hashed out and party positions on legislation are developed. Internal democracy also requires that members have basic parliamentary rights. Third, although legislatures are essentially democratic bodies, with members substantially equal to one another, some members are "more equal than others.
Strong leadership, particularly at the level of the presiding officer, is essential if the legislative process is to work well. This requires individuals with strategic, problem-solving and consensus-building abilities-people who exercise primary responsibility for the functioning of the legislative process and the maintenance of the institution.
Fourth, the processes of legislative decision making may be more or less partisan in nature. If the legislative parties are cohesive, the majority probably will play the decisive role on important issues, such as the budget. The majority party caucus will be a principal forum for deciding key issues.
But the minority must also be accorded parliamentary rights. If the majority lacks cohesion, or has tended to dominate, as it does in essentially one-party states, decisions on key issues probably will be made on a more bipartisan basis. Either system can work, depending on the political culture of the state.
A major danger is that if partisanship is too heavily weighted in the process, minority members may find themselves almost completely shut out, the only role remaining to them that of mischief maker. Unrestrained partisanship can damage civility and undermine the legislature as a working institution, further eroding the trust and confidence the public has in it.
The conduct of the legislative parties, therefore, merits close scrutiny. Fifth, deliberation is an important feature of the legislative process. It necessitates a give-and-take and an exchange of information and ideas. Deliberation provides the possibility that a number of legislators will be influenced by the discussion. The deliberative process is not restricted to the debate or lack thereof that goes on at the second reading stage on the senate and house floor.
It is also a vital element of committee activity and continues in the frequent and unstructured exchanges in members' offices, leadership conferences, at lunch, and in the corridors of the state house or legislative office building. Deliberation as a standard is central to the very idea of a legislature. Sixth, while deliberation involves the exchange of ideas, building consensus involves a more material exchange. It depends on the willingness of opposing sides to sit down at a table together and negotiate their differences.
Generally, that means dealing, trading and compromise, so that as many participants as possible buy into a settlement. The overwhelming majority of laws enacted by a legislature are settled by some process of consensus building. On relatively few issues are lines so firmly drawn that negotiating is fruitless and battling it out is the only way to arrive at a decision.
There is little doubt that one of the most important tasks of the legislature is to build consensus; a legislature that is effective in this regard is likely to be an effective legislature.
Seventh, these processes not only work to make laws, they are also intended to address problems facing the state. If legislative processes are not related to state needs, they cannot entirely fulfill the expected lawmaking function.
Ideally, we expect legislatures to solve problems and improve conditions in the state. At the very least, legislatures have to address problems. Two sets of factors contribute substantially to the ability of a legislature to perform well. One can be called capacity, the other institutionalism. Capacity in the broadest sense is the resources, the wherewithal for the legislature to do its job. In the parlance of legislative reform, the amount of time in session and in the interim period, the size of the professional staff, the adequacy of facilities and technology add up to legislative capacity.
How much staff is needed? How should it be organized? Is a full-time legislature better than a part-time one? Questions like these deserve attention, although I doubt that the answers are the same in every place. Whether the legislature is more professional or more amateur may not be critical either.
Just what combination of resources or how much of each type is optimum or sufficient probably varies from state to state. A vital part of a legislature's capacity is the quality of the legislators themselves. In considering quality, we have to deal with the issue of professional versus citizen legislators-that is, those who are relatively full-time careerists on the one hand and those who are essentially part- and short-timers on the other.
In just about every legislature, some of each type exist. But in some legislatures for example, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania professionals predominate, while in others for example, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont and Wyoming citizens predominate. It is not possible to say that one type of member is more desirable than another for a legislature, or just what mix works best. Quality also applies to the personal characteristics of legislators, and especially of legislative leaders.
The reputations of legislatures in California during the late s and early s and Florida and Minnesota during the s and s were based in large part on the substantial number of able, intelligent, energetic, dedicated and politically skillful individuals who served at the time. These members made a marked difference in the performance of the legislature.
Legislators with such characteristics clearly contribute to legislative performance everywhere. The integrity, or the ethics, of the legislature is an integral part of capacity. Although we do not define legislative goodness strictly in terms of the ethical behavior of members, the ethics of the capitol community and the type and enforcement of ethics laws are among the factors that affect how legislators function.
Legislatures characterized by integrity are likely to do better than those where the ethical conduct of members is over the line or too near the line. Legislative integrity in deed and in spirit matters not only to the public, but also to the overall ability of the legislature to fulfill its representational responsibilities.
Institutionalism is related to a combination of factors that pertain to a legislator's identification with the senate or the house and with the legislature as a political institution. Three of the most important ones are concern, community and continuity. Concern has to do with a sense of, identification with, or dedication to the legislature, all of which are likely to promote the performance of balancing power and making law.
For a legislature to be good, it needs members who care about its well-being and who engage in institution-building activities or at least do not engage in activities that are institutionally harmful or destructive. Members who are institutionally inclined will defend the legislature against criticism they believe unjust and will discourage colleagues from running against the institution in order to win office.
Community encompasses the culture and norms of the legislature. It requires some level of agreement on the need for civility and some manifestation of collegiality. Informal socializing among legislators helps to build community. In most places such interaction has been in decline in recent years; nonetheless, it remains an element of institutionalism, and one that seems to facilitate the performance of legislative functions.
Continuity is probably as important to institutionalism as anything else. Some continuity of membership and staff not only provides for greater knowledge and skill on the parts of lawmakers, but it promotes institutional values. It takes a while for most new members to identify with and develop concern for the legislature as an institution that merits their support.
Continuity does not require extremely low turnover of membership, but only that some members serve for a decent period of time. By requiring that everyone turn over with relatively brief regularity and by discouraging legislators from identifying with an institution they are passing through, term limits run counter to institutional continuity.
The 18 states that currently limit terms are at a disadvantage when it comes to having a good legislature. This model of the good legislature is based on three principal legislative functions-balancing power, representing constituencies and lawmaking.
The factors that facilitate performance of these functions are capacity and institutionalism. Some might suggest a different model, but on the basis of what I have read and observed of legislatures, I think this is as good as any place to start thinking about what makes a legislature good.
It will not be easy to bring to life the categories discussed here; it is virtually impossible to measure the several dimensions of the good legislature and to rank the legislatures of the 50 states on goodness.
0コメント